believe false Fundamentals his words are not intelligible sense for the following words or else they have no degree of truth in them relate to the other acception of Fundamental already sopoken of so that according to Dr. H. it is not intelligible sense to undertake for him and his Friends that they should not speak contradictions Is this a sober discourse which falls reelingly to the Ground of it self when none pushes it or was it a friendly part to involve his Friends in his own wise predicament And now can any man imagine that when I said Dr. H. and his Friends acknowledge ours a true Church there should be any difficulty in the sense of those words or that I should impose upon them that they held our Church not to have erred yet this Doctor who alwayes stumbles most in the plainest way will needs quibble in the word true and S. W. must bear the blame for grossely equivocating whereas the sense was obvious enough to every child as the words before cited will inform the Reader that I meant them of the true nature of a Church which since they acknowledged ours to have I argued hence that they must not say we held false Fundamentals that is such as they account Fundamentals for since a Church cannot be a Church but by Fundamental points of Faith and Faith must not be false it follows that a falshood in Fundamental destroyes the very Being of a Church This being so I shall beg Dr. H's pardon if I catechize him a litle in point of reason in which his Cause makes him a meer Cathecumenus and ask him how he can hold ours to have even the true nature of a Church since he hold that which she esteems as her Fundamental of Fundamentals and that upon which as her sole certain Ground she builds all her Faith to wit her infallible Authority to be false erroneous If the sole Authority upon which immeditately she builds all Faith be a ruinous falshood she can have no true Faith of any Article consequently can have no Faith at all nor be a true Church since a Church cannot survive the destruction of Faith But their ambition to honour their Nag's-head Bishops with the shadow of a Mission from our Church makes them kindly speak non sense to do her a seeming courtesy for their own interest I know he tells us here in general termes Answ p. 15. that she is not unchurch't because she holds the true Foundation layd by Christ but offends by enlarging and superadding but he must show why the Catholicks who hold no point of Faith but solely upon their Churche's infallibility if thar Ground be false that is be none as he sayes can hold any thing at all as of Faith that is have any Faith at all at least how they can have Certainty of any point of Faith or the written word of God if the sole-certain Rule of Faith by which onely they are assured of all those were taken sometimes in a lie to wit while it recommended to them those superadditions they account false received in the same tenour as the rest from the hands of our immediate Forefathers But let us follow Dr. H. who goes jogging forward but still rides as his ill fortune is beside the saddle To points which they accounted fundamental I counterpos'd tolerable ones that is such as they esteemed not-fundamental which I therefore call'd tolerable because they account these neither to touch the Foundation of Faith as building or destroying such as he acknowledged in the fore-going Paragraph our pretended super additions to be saying that the dross doth not annibilate the Gold It being therefore plain that falshoods which are not in fundamentals so unconsistent with the essence of a Church must be in things not-fundamental and therefore consistent with the nature of a Church that is tolerable if taken in themselves he neglects to take notice of them as they are in themselves that is such as their admission ruines not Faith nor the essence of a Church and sayes the pressing them upon them is intolerable and not admittable without hypocrisy or sin against conscience and why because they believe them not I ask had they a demonstration they were false if so then let them produce it and if it bear test I shall grant them innocent if not then since nothing else can oblige the Vndâ—rstanding but the foresaid Evidence their pretended obligation in Conscience to disaccept them is convinc't to spring from weakness of passion not from force of reason I added that those points more deserved the Church should command their obseruance than Copes or Surplices c. And though Mr. H. knowes very well that one of those points was the fundamental Ground of all Faith in the Church they left and Copes c. but things indifferent yet by a cheap supposal that all is false which we hold he can deny that they are more deserving our Church should command their observance and so carries the cause clear He addes Answ p. 16. that they weightier the importance of the things commanded is the more intolerahle is the pressure of imposing them and makes disobedience greater in things indifferent Whereas surely the Governours are more highly obliged to command the observance of that on which they hold Faith to be built than all the rest put together Is it a greater obstinacy to deny a Governour taxes than to rebell absolutely against him the Doctor 's Logick sayes it is since obstinacy according to him is greater in resisting commands in things indâ—fferent Especially if the Rebel please to pretend that the urging his submission to that Authority is an intolerable pressure Mr. H. here acquits him without more adoe But to return since it was our Churche's greater obligation to command their observance of those points and the holding of such points was not deemed then by them destructive to Faith but on the other side known by reason of their pretended importance to be in an high degree damnable to themselves and others if they hap't to be mistaken no less than most palpable and noon-day evidence can excuse them in common prudence from a most desperate madness and headlong disobedience but the least shadow of a testimony-proof is a meridian Sun to Dr. H. and gives as clear an evidence as his understanding darkened by passion is willing to admit Thus much to show the particular miscarriarges of Dr. H. in every Paragraph of his answer to my Introduction there remaines still the Fundamental one that he hath said nothing at all to the point of reason in it but onely mistaken each particular line of it I alledged as my reason why they dealt not seriously against their own Desertours because no colourable pretence could possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the very same would hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them This proved ad hominem thus because the Protestants acknowledge the points
deny'd by both to be tolerable that is such as could consist with Faith and a Church but with this disadvantage on the Protestants side that the points they deny'd being of more importance more deserved our Church should command their observance Now every one sees that the proper Answer to his Discourse is to specialize some plea for themselves which will not as well excuse their Desertours The Doctor alledges none nor goes about to alledge any but as if he were dividing his Text playes upon my words in particular neglecting the import of them altogether He sayes indeed it is against their conscience to admit those other super additionary points the same say the Puritans of Copes Surplices and Organs The Doctor will object that they are indifferent and stight matters and therefore it is a greater disobedience not to admit them they will answer that Surplices are ragges of Rome that Organs are Babylonish Bagpipes and all the rest scandalous and superstitious inventions Still they are equall in their pleas Nay if a Socinian deny Christ to be God and pretend as doubtless he will with as much seriouness as Mr. H. that he cannot but sin against Conscience if he think otherwise and therefore 't is tyranny to press it upon him the Church may not oblige him to believe that Christ is God Dr. H. hath pleaded his cause joyntly with his own that is hath said no more in his own excuse than the Socinian may for his Again if Dr. H or his Church press upon the Socinian the belief of Christ's Divinity upon this ground that it is a point of most weighty importance he presently answers the Doctor with his own words that the weightier the importance of the things commanded are the more intolerable is the pressure of imposing them And so in stead of impugning Dr. H. hath made good S. W's words that they can alledge no colourable pretence which may not be alledged by the other Sects What if we should adde that the Church they left had been in long possession of the belief of Infallibility and so proceeded upon these Grounds that her Faith was certain when she prest those points upon them but they confess their unceâ—tâ—in and could proceed upon no better then probable Grounds when they prest any thing upon their Desertours is there not a palbable difference put between the pretended Authorities of imposing points to be held in us and them and a greater danger of disaccepting ours in them than theirs in the Puritans If they erred onely a confest probability stood against them which gave them just licence to dissent if they had a probable reason that the admission of those points was bad since nothing but absolute Evidence pretended could even pretend to oblige their Vnderstandings to assent to them if you erred a pre acknowledg'd Infallibility strengthen'd by a long Possession asserted by the attestation of Tradition and many other motives stood against you so that nothing but most palpable undeniable and rigorous Evidence could possibly disoblige your first Reformers from their ancient belief or oblige them to this new one If the Puritans erred since they were onely ornaments and Rituals they refused to admit the utmost harm which could accrue by their non-admission of them was terminated in the want of exren decency onely and held by the very Authority which imposed them to be but indifferent and far from being essentially-destructive to a Church But if you or your first Reformes chanc't to erre which the bare probability of your Faith confess 't by your selves in this case makes more than likely then your contrary position ruin'd all Faith and Government since the Church you disobey'd held no other Ground of Faith or Church Government save onely those you reâ—ected and disacknowledg'd to wit her own Infallibility and the Popes Authority Again if you happen'd to be in the wrong and that indeed there was no other either Church Government or Ground of Faith than these then how wickeldy desperate to your own soules and universally destructive to all man-kind and their means of attaining eternal bliss must your disclaiming and publikely renouncing both these be none of which can be objected to the Puritanes by you So evidently true were my words that no colourable pretence can possibly be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm nay much firmer for other Sects why they left them Yet I doubt not but the Doctor will after all this as he does here Answ p. 16. applaud his own victory with a triumphant Epiphonema and say that S. W. his probations are beyond all measure improbable when himself had not said a word to the intent of the discourse but onely play'd mistakingly and non-sensically upon some particular words Yet when he hath done like a tender hearted man he pittyes himself again that he should so unnecessarily insist upon it Truly so do I pitty him or any man else who takes much pains to no purpose though I pitty more the Reader who can imagine any credence is to be given to so weak a Writer He ends his Answer to my Introduction with telling the Reader that I have with no shew of Iustice suggested his tediousness in things acknowledged Whereas almost all his first Chapter and third together with those where he proves the Pope not Head of the Church from the title of converting England or Concession of our Kings as also almost all his narrative Confession of his Schism with many other scatter'd discourses are things acknowledg'd by both parties and were very tedious and dull to me What he addes that he will not disturb me when I speak truth unless he shall discern some part of his arguing concern'd is a very pretty jest intimating that he stands in preparation of mind to oppose even Truth it self if it stand in his way or his arguing be concern'd in it and not vindicated in his former Reply A sincere person Hovver let him onely grant that what he vindicates not but leaves untouch't is Truth and we shall without difficulty strike up a bargain Sect. 8. How Dr. H. prevaricates from the Question by stating it wrong His powerfull way of arguing by Ifs and how he defends himself for mincing the Fathers words THe Fathers alledged by Mr. H. attested that no just cause could be given of Schism whence he inferres of Schism p. 10. that the causes and motives of Schism are not worth producing or heeding in this controversy The Catholick Gentleman and S. W. both exprest their dislike of this inference the Doctor pretends to vindicate the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it as he pedantically calls it and referres me to his Reply for his reasons to which I shall both give a solution and at once lay open the nature of Sâ—hism and the manner in which they ought to controvert it I mean as far as it can have any show of bearing controversy Schism then which we joyntly
The fourteenth Paragraph runs partly upon the same affected mistake of Infallibility I asked him to put in him some apprehension that a company of men on earth might be Infallible which he deny'd if all the Protestants could be fallible in witnessing whether twenty years agoe there were Protestant Bishops or no. First he will neither say I nor no to the point onely he sayes Answ p. 37. he beleeves not they can probably mistake in that thing Next he tells us this is no proof that they are any way infallible in all matters of fact without all possible mixture of errour Is it possible Mr. H. should think his Reader so silly as to take such ridiculous tergiversations for a sufficient Answer My question was whether they could erre and conspire to tell an open ly in a thing visible as the Sun at noon-day and Dr. H. first shuffles at that and then counterfeits that I pretend them Infallible in all matters of Fact whatsoever as in ghessing what past in the late Kings priuy Councel while he was living or whether Bevis of Hampton fought with a Dragon or no. Dear Reader I must address a line or two to thee and desire thee if thou beest Dr. H's Friend to ask him whether it be the Catholicks tenet that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith onely or in all things indefinitely as in knowing the height number of the Starres what weather it shall be every day next yeare c. if he cannot show the latter to be the tenet of our Church then aâ—k him from S. W. whether he hath either shame or conscience in him to evade answering the point by imposing upon our Church a counterfeit tenet and which himself knows to be such and then making it the but of his ayre-beating impugnation repeating it so often though once were enough to move a blush had not custome taken away sense that I am confident any candid Reader will nauseate and be offended at so odious a piece of fundamental insincerity His other weaknesses mingled with this especially his skipping aside from the question to the fallibility of private men shuffling about for excuses in stead of answering I or no with other sleights already lay'd open make up a mess of most excellent non-sense call'd in another phrase Dr. H's third Section Sect. 11. What miserable work Dr. H. makes with that plain proposition A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have Power to bind any to believe her MY fourth Section touched at three points Schism Disarm'd p. 21. the ground of Vnity in a Church the groundlesness of Schism and of Mr. H's manner of arguing to clear himself of the latter inserting also some part of the Catholick Gentleman 's letter which tended to those purposes The first I show'd to consist in the Infallibility of that Authority which justly pretends to oblige the assent of others to her proposals Hence follows the second that no Schismatical Congregation that acknowledges it self fallible can with any face pretend to impose an obligation of belief nor yet excuse it self for breaking from acknowledg'd Antiquity or possession upon fallible that is probable Grounds The third was that since the Schism we object to the Protestants is charged by us to be such as involves heresy and by consequence the renouncing our Rule of Faith it was the weakest piece of reason that ever was reason'd by a Doctor of Divinity to make the summe and ground of all his Answer the denying the said Rule of Faith our Churche's Infallibility which was in effect to confess the Fact and to prove he is no Schismatick because he is an Heretick and Schismatick both For answer to these three points he referres me to his Reply cap. 2 Sect. 3. In return to which as far as hath not already been answered I shall give these satisfactory reflexions upon the main points not attending him in each Paragraph in many of which the insipid Crambe of his own self sayings is boyl'd over and over But first he sends three or four whifflers upon the stage to trifle it ere the tragedy of Faith and it's certainty begins His first trifle is that the Catholick Gentleman calls that Mr. Knot 's concession which is his Conclusion from that Concession A sore quarrel as if he who granted the premisses and made the inference himself must not also grant the Conclusion if so then his Conclusion is his Concession as well as the premisses His second trifle is that Reply p. 14. he pretends all that was by him taken notice of was the consequence between the Premisses and that Conclusion which naturally inferred a third thing that it was unlawful to forsake the Communion of any fallible Church and the Catholick Gentleman 's impugning his admiration at it and confirming this main point of the Controversy he calls a digression whereas it is a pure shuffling in him to avoyd this Question which is fundamental and solely important to this present Controversy concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of separating from the true Church upon pretence of being bound by her to equivocate or ly His third trifle is that he tells us Repl. p. 14. he may certainly affirme how this Thesis of ours A Church that is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to beleeve what she saith is no infallible truth nor deduced from any infallible principle whereas it is as evident a principle as any in nature that no man can in reason oblige another to hold what himself knows not as also that he cannot be said truly to know that in which he knows and confesses he may be mistaken To this the Shuffler sayes nothing His fourth trifle is when we speak of obligation of beleef to slip the point and talke of obligation to act or obey telling us wisely here that A Prince can command obedience though he be not infallible Is it possible Mr. H. must be continually obliged by his cause to such affected insincerity as still to counterfeit the mistake of the question The same he repeats again p. 16. and sayes the Governours thus oblige inferiours to obedience by force of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas the question is whether the Apostles who held that without Faith that is without truth it is impossible to please God ever commanded us to believe that Congregation which being fallible might for any thing it or we know lead us into damnable errours I know that a probability of the thing in it self can oblige a man to act as a sudden Alarum of the enemies probable approach ought in prudence to rouse a General to provide for resistance but nothing except evidence can move to assent nor can any pretend lawfully and rationally to oblige to it but they who have Evidence that they cannot be mistaken in what they would bind others to believe See the judicious and
assent sprung from Evidence From this short discourse follows first that our Churches Binding her children to beleef is evidently natural just charitable rational and necessary since she obliges them upon no other Ground than that which in it's own force had pre-obliged their nature to assent to wit Evidence Secondly that no man can revolt from the Faith of such an Authority to any other but through the highest degree of vice and passion since they would be found in this case to assent to another not onely without Evidence but against it Thirdly that therefore the Governours of the Church who proceed according to this power may justly punish and excommunicate those who recede from her Beleef founded in her Authority thus evidenced since this recession must spring from vice or a disorder'd affection in the will and vice all the world allows may be punished Fourthly that no tyranny can possibly be imputed to our Church as long as she proceeds upon such Grounds since she onely governs men according to their nature or Reason Fifthly that they who adhere to any other fallible Congregation upon onely probable that is inevident Grounds against her Authority thus evidenced being therefore as hath been shown in the highest degree vicious and passionate if they prove obstinate in it ought upon necessity to be Excommunicated cast out of the Church and separated from the Congregation of the Faithfull Reason showing plainly if no good can be done for their obstinate Souls order is to be taken that they do no hurt to the Souls of others Sixthly that all who forsake this infallible attestation of the Church they were in called Oral Tradition as did the Protestants in all points wherein they differ from us deserve this Excommunication since they left a pre-acknowledged Evidence and began to dogmatize upon acknowledg'd probabilities onely that is left proceeding to assent in that manner which was acknowledgedly rational connatural and virtuous and beginning to proceed in such a manner as is necessarily irrational unnatural and vicious Seventhly it follows that a Congregation which is fallible cannot without the greatest impudence in the world pretend to oblige rational Souls to assent upon her Authority since if she sees she may be in the wrong hic nunc in such a point she can have no Evidence that she is not actually deceived in it and so wanting Evidence to make good her Authority she wants whatsoever can oblige a rational Soul to assent upon her Authority Eighthly it follows hence that not onely the Independents Presbyterians c. may justly refuse to hear the Protestant Church which acknowledges her self fallible but that they sin if they should hear her since in that case they would be found to assent to an Authority without evidence of the veracity of that Authority Ninthly it follows that the Protestant Church acknowledging her self fallible and the like may be said of all fallible Congregations cannot even oblige the Independents Presbyterians c to behave themselves quietly within their Church and submit to their Government For in case that fallible Congregation oblige her Children to a subscription or declaration of their assent to her doctrine it were a vice either to assent without Evidence of authority which is wanting to a fallible Church or subscribe without a real inward assent as the Doctor himself confesses they may then resist such a command of that Church and express themselves contrary and disobedient Nay more if that Congregation be fallible it may possibly be in a damnable errour and some one or more may happen to see evidently that it is in such an errour and many of ordinary capacity rationally doubt what the others see now in that case why may not the former make account it is their obligatiō to oppose that Church and let men see their soul-endangering errour may maintain a party against her and defy her as one who would bring Souls to Hell by her doctrine As also why may not the latter rather than hazard the accepting a damnable errour adhere to this company of Revolters at least stand neutral between the Church and them Again since it hath been shown they may renounce the Faith of a fallible Church why may they not renounce her Government since her Faith must needs be as sacred as her Government which depends on Faith and is subordinate to it Government being chiefly to maintain Faith and such actions as proceed from Faith Neither is it lawfull yet to revolt against temporal Magistrates upon the score of their fallibility in case they oblige their Subjects onely to act or obey according to the civil State because that is a Government grounded onely upon natural reason instituted for natural ends and plainly evident it must be obey'd unavoydable inconveniences following upon disobedience which force us to confess there 's no safety for our lives or estates without this Obedience Tenthly it follows that Dr. H's denying any company of men on earth to be Infallible and by consequence to have power to bind to beleef is most exquisitely pernicious destroying at once all beleef and leaving no obligation in the world nay making it a sin to beleeve any Article of the Christian Faith For since neither Scripture nor the doctrine of the Primitive Church acknowledged by Dr. H. to have been built upon an Infallible Tradition can be evidenced to us but by some Authority faithfully conveying it down ever since that time if this Authority cannot be evidenced to be infallible no man is bound in reason to assent or believe either Scripture to be God's word or the Doctrine to be Christ's upon her Authority since there wants Evidence of that Authority's veracity which can onely oblige to assent nay more he must needs sin in precipitating his assent without Evidence to ground it on Eleventhly Dr. H. Answ p. 36. in another place grants that this universal attestation in which we found the Churche's Infallibility and all these deductions makes one as certain of a thing as if he had seen it with his own eyes and again confesses himself Infallibly certain of what he hath seen with his own eyes which is as much as we either say or desire Wherefore the good Doctor doth a◠once both confirm us and contradict himself Lastly it follows that it is the height of frivolousness for D. H. even to pretend excuse from obligation to beleeve our Church and assent to the doctrine of his own without most undeniable and rigorous Evidence both for the errableness of ours and the inerrableness of the Protestants Church By these brief deductions from that one evident Ground of the infallibility of Vniversal Attestation the prudent Reader will plainly see how consequently the Catholick Church proceeds to the grounds of Nature and Reason how inconsequently to both the Protestant Churches must necessarily goe when they would oblige either to Government or Faith Since Certainty and Evidence once renounced there remains nothing to move the Vnderstanding to
onely to mean at present a deemed or beleeved certainty of Faith in him who is to maintain it Now whoever holds his Faith and its ground certain as Catholiks do is obliged eo ipso to hold for certain likewise that the Government recommended to him by the same Rule of Faith is to be submitted to and by consequence that the rejecting it is Schism whence follows that he must hold also for certain that the Propagatour of that Tenet is a Ringleader of Schismaticks publickly pernicious and one who by his poisonous Writings infects the souls of men with as hainous a vice as ever entituled any to damnation Neither can he hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the ground of his own Faith uncertain and call into question the substance of all his hope that he may instead thereof entertain charitable thoughts of the impugner of it Now then let us consider what carriage is due towards a private person held for certain to be one who endeavours to draw souls to hell by his Writings and Authority from him who holds him so nor can hold him otherwise unlesse he will hold the grounds of his own Faith doubtful ought not this Catholike Writer if he has any zeal for his Faith or care of his Conscience which obliges him in charity to prevent so great mischief to use the means and waies which wit and art can invent to confute and discredit that mans harmful sophistry and disparage his authority as fat as truth can justifie his words ought hee not to trample down all tendernesse which his good nature would suggest neglect all considerations of respect all condescensions of civility to lay him open plainly and palpably to be what hee is that is ridiculous nonsensical weak blasphemous or whatever other Epithet the defence of so bad a cause makes so bad a writer deserve why should he make scruple going upon those grounds that his Faith is most certain and the former sequel no lesse to give him the same language if he be found to deserve it as St. Iude gave the Adversaries of Faith in his daies as the Fathers gave Porphyrius afterwards nay more if he sees he can make him justly ridiculous why should he not expresse himself ironically too in order to his nonsence as well as Elias might scoffe at the Priests of Baal In a word whatever can conduce to the justly disgracing him as the Defender of a certainly deemed-pernicious cause might lawfully nay in Charity ought have been used to undeceive his adherentes and preserve others from a certainly-beleeved danger and that the greatest of dangers eternal damnation Hence sollows that though S W. may perhaps be blamed for holding his Faith certain yet he is inculpable for proceeding consequently to the former Tenet that is in treating Dr. H. as a pernicious destroyer of soules since as hath been proved he cannot think him otherwise unlesse hee either doubt of his own Faith or renounce the light of his Reason which taught him to deduce thence by evident consequence that such he was and as such to be treated He who holds ill principles is blameable indeed in that regard but yet he is worthy of praise and commendations for proceding consequently upon them since to deduce consequences aright is very laudable As for the culpablenesse which may accrue by holding his Faith certain to clear himseif to rational persons for wordish and merely testimony-men are not capable of reason he feares not to professe that he makes account he hath as perfect evidence or more than he hath for any thing in nature that Truths of no lesse concernment then Eternity written in the hearts of so many as may in a just estimate make up the account of mankind in such a powerful manner and with such incompatable motives as the Apostles writ them being so conformable to nature not meerly speculative but each of them visibile and daily practical could never dye or decay out of the hearts of Christians in any age Nor hath he lesse evidence that consequently Scripture its interpretation being subject to misprision as far as they depend not upon this and are regulaâ—ed by it Vniversal Tradition is the onely certain and absolute rule of Faith whence follows that both they who build upon any other ground have onely opinion to found their faith for those points which they receive nor from tradition as also that that Church who relies upon universal Tradition for each point of Faith erres in none not can erre so long as the sticks close to so safe a Principle Now then finding no Church doe this but the Roman-Catholike for neither Greeks nor Protestants nor any else pretended to have received ever from their immediate Fore fathers those points of Faith in which they differ from her doubt not to account Her that onely Church which hath the true motive ground and rule of Faith since probability cannot be that Rule and consequently which hath true Faith and is a true Church Hence I am obliged to esteem all other Congregations which have broken from that onely-certain Rule or her Government recommended by the same Rule Schismatical and Heretical hence I conclude her Infallible because I make account I can demonstrate that the principle upon which onely she relies is impossible to fail Hence Iastly that I may come home to my intent I account my faith certain and the propagator of the contrary certainly pernicious to mens souls and therfore that it was both his desert and my obligation not to let slip any possible advantage which might with Truth damnify his cause and him as-the maintainer of it Now that we may turn over the leaf as certainty that faith is true is a sufficient ground to beget a just zeal in its propugners against its adversaries so a profest fallibitily and uncertainty is uterly insufficient for that end and unable to interest conscience in its defence For how should conscience be inreressed to defend positions held upon no better ground with any eagernesse unlesse reason be interessed first and how can reason be obliged to the serious and vigorous patronage of what it felf knows certainly that it knows not whether it be true or no See but how the working of Nature in all men gives testimony to this Truth If we hear one obstinately affirm and stand to a thing which we know certainly is otherwise though the matter it self be but of triviall concernment even Nature seems to stirre us up in behalf of Truth to a just resentment and hardly can we refrain from giving a sharp reprehension if the person be underus or some expression of-dislike if this peremptory wronger of truth exceed our jurisdiction So on the other side if we be uncertain whether the thing be so or no we find it quite abates that keennesse of opposition neither will any one unlesse very peevish and weak engage passion to quarrel about a conjecture or if it so happen sometimes as when probablists
impossible they to produce sufficient arguments that it was unjust that is they must oppose or object we defend they ought to argue we to answer Hence appeares how meanly skill'd Dr. H. is in the art of disputing complaining many times in his last Book that I bring no Testimonies out of Antiquity and that I do not prove things in my Schism Disarm'd whereas that Treatise being design'd for an Answer to his Book of Schism had no obligation to prove my tenet but onely to show that his arguments were unconclusive Hence also is discover'd how manifestly weak and ridiculous Mr. H. was in the second part of the most substantial Chapter of his book of Schism where hemakes account he hath evidence S. Peter had not the Keyes given him particularly by solving our places of Scripture for that tenet where besides other faults in that process which Schism Disarm'd told him of he commits three absurditiâ—â— First in putting himself upon the side of the Defendant wheras he ought and pretended to evidence that is to prove Secondly by imagining that the solving an Argument is an Evidence for the contrary whereas the force of such a solution is terminated onely in showing that illation weak but leaves it indâ—fferent whether the thing in it self be so or no or evidently deducible from some other Argument Thirdly he falsly supposes that we build our Faith upon those places of the written words as explicable by wit not by Tradition and the practise of our Church whereas we onely own the delivery from father to son as the Ground of all our belif and make this the onely Rule by which to explicate Scripture However some Doctors of ours undetrake sometimes ex superabundanti to argue ad hominem and show our advantage over them even in that which they most pretend to I know Mr. H. will object that all this time I have pleaded for him whiles I went about to strengthen the title of Possession since they are at present in actual Possession of their Independency from the Pope and therefore that in all the consequences following thence I have but plow'd his ground with mine own heifer But the Reader may please to consider that though I spoke before of Possession in general and abstractedly yet in descending to particular sorts of Possessions we must take along with us those particular circumstances which necessarily accompany them and design them to be such Since then it were unworthy the wisdom of the Eternal Father that our Blessed Saviour Iesus Christ coming to plant à Church should not provide for it's Being and Peace which confist in Order and Government it follows that Christ instituted the Government of the Church In our case then the Possession of Government must be such a Possession as may be presumable to have come from Christ's time not of such an one as every one knows when it began Since then it is agreed upon by all sides that this present possession the Protestants now have of their Independency was begun lately it is impossible to presume it to be that which was instituted by Christ unless they evidence the long settled possession of that Authority they renounced to have been an usurpation and on the contrary unless they evidence this that Possession is justly presumable to have come from Christ's time the maintainers and claimers of it making this their main tenour that truly it came from Christ Now then seeing we hear no news from any good hand nor manifest tokens of the beginning of this universal and proud Vsurpation which could not in reason but draw after it a train of more visible consequences and be accompany'd with a multitude of more palpable circumstances than the renouncing it in England which yet is most notorious to the whole world again since the disagreement of their own Authours about the time of it evidently shows that the pretended invasion of this Authority is not evident hence both for these and other reasons also such a Possession as this is of it's self and in it's own nature capable of pleading to have been derived from Christ that is to be that Possession which we speak of whereas the other is discountenanc'd by it's confest and known original which makes it not capable of it self to pretend that Christ instituted it unless it be help't out with the additional proof that it had been expulsed from an ancienter Possession by this usurpation of the Pope So that to say the truth this present Possession of theirs makes nothing at all for their purpose since it is no ways valid but in vertute of their evidences that the same Possession had been ancieÌ„tly setled in a long peace before our pretended invasion and if they can evidence this and that we usurp't then it is needless and vain to plead present Possession at all since that Possession which is evidenced to have been before ours is questionless that which was settled by Christ In a word though in humane affaires where Prescription has force we use to callâ—t Possession when one hath enjoyed any thing for some certain time yet in things of divine Institution against which no prescription pleads he onely can pretend possession of any thing who can stand upon it that he had it nearer Christ's time and by consequence he who shall be found to have begun it later unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession is not for the present having such a thing or Power to be styled a Possessour but an Vsurper an intruder an invader disobedient rebellious and in our case Schismatical I am not ignorant that Dr. H. rawly affirmes that the Pope's Authority began in Phocas his time but I hope no Reader that cares much for his salvation wil take his word for honest till he show undeniable and evident matters of fact concerning the beginning progress Authours abetters opposers of that newly introduc't Government of Head of the Church the writers that time for it or against it the changes it made in the face of the Ecclesiastical State and the temporal also with whose interest the other must needs be enlinsk't and what consequences follow'd upon those changes together with all the circumstances which affect visible and extern actioÌ„s Otherwise against the sense of so many Nations in the Church they left the force of Tradition and so many unlikelihoods prejudicing it to tell us onely a crude Story that is was so or putting us off with three or four quotations in Greek to no purpose or imagining some chimerical possibilities how it might have been done hardly consisting with the nature of mankind is an Answer unworthy a man much more a Doctor and to say that it crep't in invisibily and unobserved as dreams do into men's heads when they are asleep is the part of some dreaming dull head who never lookt into the actions and nature of man or compared them with the motives which should work upon them The eleventh Ground
learned Preface to Rusworth's Dialogues where this point is largely handled and fully cleared These trifles having thus play'd their parts and whiffled a while out step the main bangers and lay about them at Faith it 's certainty Church and all whatsoever can make us rationally Christians First the former Thesis that a Church which is fallible and knows not whether it lies or no in any proposition cannot have power to bind any to believe what it saith which stood firm enough in it's own plain terms is by Mr H's art made straddle foure several ways so to dispose it to a downfal and drawn and quarter'd with unheard of tortures because it will not confess a falshood of which it was not conscious The foure distracted limbs of it which are to be anatomiz'd particularly are here put down by Mr. H. p. 15. 1. What is meant by can ly 2. By knowing or not knowing whether it lie or no. 3 By Power to bind 4. By Belief An ordinary Reader that mean't honestly would think these words very easy but that is their fault to be too easy they must be blunder'd and made harder otherwise the Reader would find no difficulty to assent to them But is not this merciless rigour The first and second ought not to have been torn from one another being the same for if the Church can lie hic nunc in such a proposition attested by her and hath no infallible certainty she doth not then it follows that she doth lie for any thing she knows The same cruelty is shown in dismembring and taking asunder that one notion of power of binding to belief which was the whole import of the controversy and in treating the notion of power to bind apart from that other of Belief By this shamefull and unconscionable craft avoiding the whole question and applying the words power to bind which now had got loose of belief to obligation to render exteriour obedience p. 16. In his paraphrase upon the words can lie he hath one passage worth all his Friends especial attention which is that after he had enumerated all the means he could imagine to secure a Church from errour he confesses Rep. p. 15. 16. that that Church is yet fallible may affirm and teach false Id est saith he it is naturally possible it may but it is not strongly probable it will Then it seems after all this adoe for any thing he hath said it is still indifferently and equally probable that it does erre though not strongly probable it will that is the Faith of that Church and all that adhere to it hang in equal scales whether it be true or no and this solid piece of sense is produced by Dr. H. in a discourse about a Churche's power to bind to belief Take notice Reader how shufflingly the Doctor behaves himself in saying it is naturally possible that Church may erre providing himself an evasion beforehand in the word naturally against any encounter This man hath forsworn ever being positive with his Reader Ask him whether supernaturally or by means of supernatural assistance it be or be not impossible she should erre if not what mean't the word naturally since he knows we hold the Church is supernaturally infallible if it be to what end after reckoning up also there supernatural means of confirming her against erring did he tell us in the close with an Id est that she is naturally fallible As for the Churche's knowledge whether it erre or no he sayes Rep. p. 16. it may signify no more than a full persuasion and belief cui non subest dubium where in they neither doubt nor apprehend reason of doubting that what they define is truth though for knowledge properly so called or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum it may not have attained or pretend to have attained to it Where first to omit his declining a positive answer whether the Church be Infallible or no with may not have attained c. 't is the most perfect piece of perniciousness that ever was crouded into so narrow a room destroying at once all Faith and Ground of Faith and making the Church no certainer of her Faith than Iews Turks and Heathens of theirs For if the Churche's knowledge whether she erreor no means that she hath onely a full persuasion cui non subest dubium Turks Heathens and Iews have that are fully persuaded and have no doubt but their Faith is true and so Mr. H. hath brought Christianity to a fair pass by his Rule of Faith Again passion and vice can breed in men a full persuasion that an errour is true such a persuasion as shall take away actual doubt nay the more passion a man is in the less still he doubts Is this a congruous explication of a Church's knowledge which leaves it indifferent whether she be rationally and virtuously or passionately and viciously thus fully persuaded Lastly if the Churche's knowledge whether she erre or no be onely an assurance cui potest subesse falsum why may not there subesse dubium that is if it may be false why may not she doubt of it or indeed why should not she be bound to doubt of it Falshood in things concerning Eternity is a dangerous rock and ought to breed caution which goes ever accompany'd with doubt where the security is not perfect now how can the knowledge that it may be otherwise found a secutity that the thing is so that is is not otherwise or what hinders her from doubting if she sees she may be wrong If Mr. H. reply that the Church was surprised or had not so much wit as to raise the difficulty then indeed she may thank her circumstances or her doltishness not her Grounds for that her groundless assurance For otherwise should she call her thoughs to account and ask herself this question Why do I assent with a full persuasion to such a thing which I see may be otherwise she must if she understand the nature of a soul morality acknowledge it was passion vice not evidence of reason which made her assent and consequently hold her self obliged to retract that assent and leave off to hold any point of Christian doctrine nay even that Christ is God without a perpetual doubt and fear that the contrary may be true So perfectly weak and fundamentally pestilent is this explication of a Churches knowledge by a persuasion cui non subest dubium yet cui potest subesse falsâ—m that is of which the person doubts not although the thing in it self may be false But this keeps perfect decorum with his former assertion that it is not strongly that is it may be equally probable that a Church will erre though she have used all means imaginable to secure her self from errour After his false explication of Power to bind already spoken of which he turns to an obligation to act and obey exteriourly he addes as if the obligation to Belief were collateral
onely to our purpose that there may farther be meant by those words he ought to have said there must be onely meant by them à general obligation to believe what is with due grounds of conviction proposed But how a Church uncertain of what herself holds can duly propose Grounds able to convince rationally or that a confest and known fallibility in the proposer is sufficient in it self to make such a ground he shall never show unless he can show reason to be non-sense and non-sense Reason though he can talk finely and shuffle about in general terms I am confident the Reader will think that the former words in that proposition are very ill handled by Dr. H. but the last word Believing comes not off so well Death is too good for it nothing but annihilation and total destroying it's essence must be it's merciless doom His explication of it comes to this Reply p. 16. that they who are so wise as to search must consent according to the Grounds proposed as most palpable that is they must believe themselves I ask are they bound or no to believe the Church when they have but probability to the contrary if not where is their submission of their judgements where is their believing the Church unless they be willing to submit their private opinions to her Authority how can they be said to believe her at all Is there any easier deference than to for goe a probability upon her contrary affirmation Or if he say they may have rigorous and convincing Evidence against her that is if he grant Infallible Certainty in Faith can be had then why should Dr. H. take this from the Church and give it to a private fellow As yet therefore we have found Belief by his explication to signify in reality no belief of the Church at all let us proceed He tells us next that when the person is not competent to search Grounds then Repl. p. 17. Belief may signify a believing so far as not to disbelieve Was ever such an explication heard of Good Reader if thou beest Dr. H's Friend trust nothing but thine own eyes in such an incredible piece of fledge heresy and Atheism in the shell let nothing but thine own eyes satisfy there that it is possible for one who hath the title of Doctor of Divinity to print and set forth a position so full fraught with absurdities of the seventeens Let us count them by the poll First if the measure of that belief to which the Church can oblige the ruder sort be onely to believe so far as not to disbelieve then in reality she can oblige them to believe nothing at all but onely to remain in an indifferency of Scepticism for he who doubts of all things or halts between two opinions believes so far as not to disbelieve since not holding the contrary to any thing he positively disbelieves nothing Secondly an Heathen who never heard of Christ believes so far as not to disbelieve for how can he be said to disbelieve a thing of which he never heard So that Dr. H's Church can onely oblige her Subjects to be as good believers or Christians as Heathens are but to proceed Thirdly to believe so far as not to disbelive signifies in plain terms to belive nothing at all for he puts it not to signify a believing so far as to believe but a believing so far as not disbelieve that is he exacts no belief for the point provided there be no disbelief against it So that as before p. 16. he made the knowledge of a Church that she defin'd truly to be no more than a not doubting of it which can proceed from ignorance as well as knowledge so here Belief must pretended capable to bear the sense of not-believing provided that the not-believing be not a positive disbelief of this or belief of the contrary Fourthly I would gladly know of Mr. H. why the same Authority which has power to bind one not to disbelieve may not also oblige to believe if she can propose evident and convincing reasons to her Children that she cannot erre then she may without dispute oblige me to the latter for such motives are in their own nature able to convince the understanding and unless she can propose such by what ground can she withhold me from disbelieving or holding the contrary Vnless perhaps the Doctor pretend to show that the probable reasons for her fallibility and Infallibility be so justly and equally poiz'd in the Sceptick ballance that none can say whether the pound of rushes in the one end or the pound of strawes in the other be the weightier ware or better worth three-halfepence These explications with their wise appurtenances thus premised Dr. H. knits them up in these two propositions p. 17. 1. A Congregation that is fallible and hath no knowledge or assurance cui non potest subesse falsum that it is not deceived in any particular proposition may yet have authority to make decisions and require inferiours so far to acquiesce to their determinations as not to disquiet the peace of the Church with their contrary opinions that is no to believe at all but onely to behave themselves quietly 2. But for any absolute Infallible belief or consent That no Church which is not it self absolutely infallible and which doth not infallibly know that it is infallible hath power to require of any Where the first proposition is certainly false if the subject be certain that that is false which his fallible Church proposes to him and that it is a point which concerns salvation not to erre in and senseless if as Dr. H. seems to suppose it may be the inferiours assent is no way required for how can a speculative point be decided authoritatively if the inferiour be no way bound to assent but to acquiesce onely The second proposition is the granting that very point against which he pretended to make head to the resolution also of which his former discourse hath not in the least sort contributed So perfectly needless and to no imaginable purpose but onely to shuffle words together on any fashion is his elaborate non-sense Note Reader that in his first proposition he puts not Belief at all which yet is the onely matter in question but in the latter onely nor dares he trust it abroad there but well guarded with absolute and Infallible But I fear not his big words Let him know our tenet is that our Church hath power to oblige not to an hovering conditional belief but to an absolute and infallible one nor do we fear to affirm that the Faithful in the Catholick Church have infallible certainty of their Faith though they cannot explicate it or give a Logical account of their own thoughts It were not amiss here to let the Reader see upon this occasion what Dr. H's manner of answering is of which his whole book is ful but one example once put will make the Reader easily find it's fellows The question
down at a cheap rate Repl. p. 29. l. 27. with If Councils have any Authority for he is sure no man can possibly oppose him as long as he sayes nothing positively but keeps himself within the powerfull spell of an If. But let us see what follows if Mr. H. pleases to grant Councils any Authority then he tells us that this Authority will certainly be reducible to paternal power meaning of a Priest Bishop Metropolitan c. and this both in Provincial National and General Councils The reason he assignes for his evasion comes to this that the of fence against the whole was consequently an offence against any one there residing True but must the offence against some one Governour of which onely he treated be necessarily an offence against them all or against the whole Council otherwise what will it avail him who is not charged with omitting Schism against any particular Governour after having put that which is against the whole Church or the collection of many but quite contrary which putting down onely the Schisms against particular Governours and omitting that which was against them as collected in a Council Did ever man's Reason run counter in this manner or his insincerity so resolutely persist never to acknowledge any lapse that whereas it is as evident as noon-day that one may dissent from any one Bishop in his grounds and yet consent to the rest still he will needs prove the contrary and that the disobedience to some one sort of paternal Governour is the disobedience to all Again though a Bishop have a kind of paternal Authority over a Priest a Metropolitan over a Bishop c. and so the disobedience of these Inferiours would be against Paternal power as Dr. H. calls his first Head yet what Paternal power hath a Company of Bishops over a single Bishop or a Council consisting of three Patriarchs and five hundred Bishops over one single Patriarch It is evident then that should this Patriarch rebel against the common decrees of all the rest he could not be called a Schismatick against Paternal power and so according to Dr. H's division would be no Schismatick at all since there is no Authority there which could be said to be Paternal in respect of him himself being coequally high that is placed in the top of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy with the rest of the other Patriarchs and a Father in an Ecclesiastical sense over all the rest Their power therefore over him consists in the collective force of so many united which makes them considerable in respect of him as a whole compared to a part Now then since Dr. H cannot even pretend to have treated of a Schism against any collective power but against an Authority consisting in higher rank or degree onely 't is most evident to the most ordinary Vnderstanding that he omitted Schism against Authority of Councils After all this adoe he confesses here Rep. p. 30. that he treated not specially of Schism against General Councils that is he confesses his Division of Schism insufficient which was onely objected No I had forgot he onely goes about to give reasons why he did not treat it more specially by which pretty expression the good Reader is to be made beleeve that he had treated of it specially and onely omitted to handle it more specially whereas he purposely and professedly waved the handling it at all in this Controversy as is to be seen Of Schism p. 60. Ad now so exquisite is his shuffling art after he had labour'd to produce proofs that he did treat of Schism against Councils he brings his excuses why he did not doe it ibid. First because Councils were remedies of Schism But since they remedied them authoritatively and with such an Authority as in comparison of any one degree of power by him treated was as it were of an Vniversal in respect of a particular the Schism against them was by consequence proportionably or rather improportionably greater and so deserved in all right an eminent place of it 's own in his division Next because they are extraordinary and not standing Iudicatures I answer they are likewise of an extraordinary Authority as hath been shown and therefore could not merit to be slighted by him His third is because this was not a constant sort of Schism but upon accidental emergencies That is his treatise of Schism doth not absolutely forbid a man to be a Schismatick in an higher sort of Schism so it happen upon occasion but takes care first and more specially that he be not a Schismatick in one of those constant sorts of Schism though it be of far less guilt His fourth excuse as I reckon them is because they are now morally impossible to be had Very good his Church is accused by us of Shism against General Councils already past and Dr. H. in this book entitled their Defence therefore treats not particularly of Schism against them because they are morally impossible to be had at present and for the future though towards the end of the world he thinks it probable there may be one Of which divination of his I can give no better reason than this that Antichrist who is to be then the Vniversal secular Governour and by consequence according to Mr. H's grounds the Head of God's Church or Supreme in Ecclesiastical affaires will doe Christianity that favour as to gather a General Council This I say if any must be his meaning for the reason given by him here why they are now morally impossible to be had is because the Christian world is under so many Empires and when they are likely to be united into one towards the end of the world unless it be under Antichrist I confess my self unable to prognosticate His last excuse is Repl. p. 31. l. 2. because the Principal sort of Schism charged by the Romanists is the casting out the Bishop of Rome I answer that we charge not the Protestant with a simple Schism but a decompound one involving also heresy in each of it's parts First with a Schism from the whole Church in renouncing the Rule and Root of all our Faith Vniversal Oral Tradition of immediate Fore-fathers and by consequence separating themselves from the whole Body of the Faithful as Faithful next with renouncing the Authority of Councils proceeding upon this Ground in declaring things of Faith and lastly with not onely disobeying but disacknowleding the Authority of the Pope recommended to us by both the former And it seems strange that Mr. H. should goe about to clear the sufficiency of his division by recurring to our charging or not charging of Schism whereas he has not taken notice of any of these three Schisms charged against him but onely of petty ones against the Paternal power of a Bishop Patriarch c. which may be consistent with a guiltlesness from the other three principal ones He promised us in his Answer p. 8. 9. that he had rescued the Catholick Gentleman 's letter
the following ought to be the sixth But nothing could secure S. W. from the melancholy cavilling humour of his Adversary who is so terrible that the Printer's least oversight and his own mistake must occasion a dry adnimadversion against S. W. and yet the jest is he pretends nothing but courtesy and civility and persuades many of his passionate adherents that he practices both in his writings For answer then to my first seventh Section according to Dr. H. but in reality the sixth he refers me to his Reply c. 4. sect 1 where he answers all but the ridiculous colours as he says Answ p. 38. which indeed I must say were very ridiculous as who ever reads Schism Disarm'd p. 41. or his own book p. 68. may easily see where after he had spoken of and acknowledg'd King Henry the eighth's casting out the Pope's Authority it follows in his own words thus of Schism p. 68. First they the Romanists must manifest the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schism supposing those Successours of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ that is we must be put first to prove a thing which himself and all the world acknowledges to wit that King H. the eighth deny'd the Pope's Supremacy next that what God bid us doe is to be done and that the Authority instituted by Christ is to be obe'yd Dr H. is therefore can-did when he acknowledges here that these passages are ridiculous very unconsonant to himself when he denyes there is the least cause or ground for it in his Tract whereas his own express words now cited manifestâ—â—â— and lastly extraordinarily reserv'd in giving no other answer than this bare denial of his own express words But being taken tardy in his Divisionary art in which it is his coÌ„mon custome to talke quodlibetically he thought it the wiser way to put up what 's past with patience than by defending it give occasion for more mirth But to come to the point That which was objected to him by me and the Cath. Gent. was this That he expected Catholicks should produce Evidences and proofs for the Pope's Authority in England which task we disclaimed to belong to us who stood upon possession and such a possession as no King can show for his Crown any more than it does to an Emperour or any long and-quietly-possest Governour to evidence to a known Rebel and actual Renouncer of his Authority that his title to the Kingdome is just ere he can either account him or punish him as rebellious In answer Dr. H. Repl. p. 44. first denies that he required in the Place there agitated that is in the beginning of his fourth Chapter of Schism any such thing of the Catholicks as to prove their pretensions â—ut his own express words of Schism p. 66. 67. check his bad memory which are these Our method now leads us to enquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism Whence he proceeds to examine our Evidences and to solve them which is manifestly to put himself upon the part of the Respondent the Catholick on the part of the Opponent that is to make us bring proofs and seem to renounce the claim of our so-qualify'd a possession by condescending to dispute it Whereas we are in all reason to stick to it till it be sufficiently disprov'd which cannot be done otherwise than by rigorous Evidence as hath been shown not to dispute it as a thing dubious since 't is evident we had the possession and such a possession as could give us a title This therefore we ought to plead not to relinquish this firm ground and to fall to quibble with him in wordish testimonies To omit that the evidences he produces in our name are none of ours For the onely evidence we produce when we please to oppose is the evidence of the Infallibility of Vniversal Tradition or Attestation of Fore-fathers which we build upon both for that and other points of Faith nor do we build upon Scripture at all but as interpreted by the practice of the Church and the Tradition now spoken of Wherefore since Dr. H. neither mentions produces nor solves those that is neither the certainty of Vniversal Attestation nor the testimonies of Scripture as explicable by the received doctrine of Ancestours which latter must be done by showing that the doctrine of the Church thus attested and received gives them not this explication 't is evident that he hath not so much as mention'd much less produced or solved our Evidences Our Doctors indeed as private Writers undertake sometimes ex superabundanti to discourse from Scripture upon other Grounds as Grammar History propriety of language c. to show ad hominem our advantage over the Protestants even in their own and to them the onely way but Interpretations of Scripture thus grounded are not those upon which we rely for this or any other point of our Faith So that Dr. H. by putting upon us wrong-pretended Evidences brings all the question as is custome is to a word-skirmish where he is sure men may fight like Andabatae in the dark and so he may hap to escape knocks whereas in the other way of Evident reason he is sure to meet with enough At least in that case the controversy being onely manag'd by wit and carried on his side who can be readiest in explicating and referring one place to another with other like inventions it may be his good fortune to light on such a doltish Adversary that the Doctor may make his ayre-connected discourse more plausible than the others which is all he cares for This being a defence and ground enough for his fallible that is probable Faith Dr. H. defends himself by saying p. 44. he mean't onely that Catholicks bring Christ's donation to S. Peter for an Argument of the Pope's Supremacy instancing against the Cath. Gent. in his own confession that Catholicks rely on that donation as the Foundation or cornerstone of the whole buildâ—ng By which one may see that the Doctor knows not or will not know the difference between a Title and an Argument Christ's donation to S. Peter is our title our manner of trnour by which we hold the Pope his Successour Head pastour not our argument to infer that he is so 'T is part of our Tenet and the thing which we hold upon possession to be disprov'd by them or if we see it fitting to bee prov'd by us not our argument or proof against them to maintain it or conclude it so As a title then we rely and build upon it not produce it as a proof to conclude any thing from it And indeed I wonder any man of reason should imagin we did so since if he be a Scholar he cannot but know that we see how to the Protestants the supposed proof would be as deniable and in
This manner of treating Scripture then we Catholicks account in an high degree blasphemous nay to open the way to all blasphemousness and this because we do not dogmatize upon it or affix to it any interpretation that we build faith upon which is not warranted by the Vniversal practice of the Church and our Rule of Faith Vniversal Tradition though we know 't is the Protestant's gallantry to make it dance afther the jigging humour of their own fancies calling all God's word though never so absurd which their own private heads without ground or shadow of ground imagine deducible thence nay more to call it an Evidence that is a ground sufficient to found and establish Faith upon And thus much for Dr. H's blasphemous and irreverent treating both Faith and Scripture Sect. 4. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his own most express words the whole tenour of his Discourse the main scope of his most substantial Chapter and lastly from the whole Question by denying that he meant or held Exclusive Provinces And how to contrive this evasion he contradicts himself nine times in that one point AT length we are come home close to the question it self Whether the Pope be Head of the Church pretended to be evidently disproved by Dr. H. in the fourth Chapter of Schism by this argument S. Peter had no Supremacy therefore his Successour the Pope can have none The consequence we grant to be valid founding the Authority of the latter upon his succeding the former But we absolutely deny the Antecedent to wit that S Peter had no Supremacy that is supreme power and Iurisdiction in God's Church Dr. H. pretends an endeavour to prove it in this his fourth Chapter offering his Evidences for this negative p. 70. l. 4. First from S. Peter's having no Vniversal Iurisdiction from parag 5. to parag 20. Secondly from thence to the end of the Chapter from his not having the Power of the Keyes as his peculiarâ—â—ty and inclosure that is from his not having them so as we never held him to have had them His first Argument from S. Peter's not having an Vniversal Iurisdiction proceeds on this manner that each Apostle had peculiar and exclusive Provinces pretended to be evidenced in his fifth parag from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lot of Apostleship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iudas his place in Hell of Schism p. 71. that the Iews onely were S. Peter's Province nay that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction that the Gentiles were S. Paul's c. and all this undertaken there to be evidenced by testimonies from Scripture Fathers and other Authours What hath been the success of his Evidences from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath already been manifested by showing that he had neither any ground in the place it self to favour his explication of a lesser province nor among all the many-minded Commenters on Scripture so much as one Authority to second it As for his limiting S. Peter's Iurisdiction to the Iews onely and S. Paul's to the Gentiles by his pretended proofs his Disarmer offer'd him p. 52. that if among those many testimonies he produces to prove it there be but found any one sentence line word syllable or letter which excludes S. Peter's Authority from the Gentiles more than what himself puts in of his own head he would be content to yeeld him the whole Controversy which he vindicated to the very eyes of the Reader from every testimony one by one alledged by Dr. H. In this manner stood the case then between S. W. and his Adversary it remains now to be seen what reply he tenders to so grievous heavy and unheard-of a charge and how he can colour a fault so gross palpable and visible to the eye of every Reader Observe good Reader I beseech thee whether thou be Catholick ProtestaÌ„t or of whatever other profession that now the very point of the Controversy is in agitation For we pretend no tenour for the Pop'es Supremacy save onely that he succeeds S. Peter whom we hold to have had it if then it be evidenced as is pretended that S. Peter had none the Doctor hath inevitably concluded against us Reflect also I intreat thee on the grievousness of the charge layd by S. W. against Dr. H. and make full account as reason obliges thee and I for my part give thee my good leave that there must be most open knavery and perfect voluntary insincerity on one side or other and when thou hast examin'd it well I am a party and so must not be a Iudge lay thou the blame where thou shalt find the fault Neither despair that thou hast ability enough to be a coÌ„petent Iudge in this present contest here is no nice subtlety to be speculated but plain words to be read for what plainer than to see whether in the testimonies there be any words limiting the Iurisdiction of S. Peter or whether they were onely the additions of Dr. H. antecedently or subsequently to the testimonies But what needs any Iudge to determine or decide that which Dr. H. himself hath confest here in his Reply and Answer where seeing it impossible to show any one word in all that army of Testimonies which he muster'd up there limiting S. Peters Iurisdiction to the Iews or excluding it from the Gentiles which yet was there pretended he hath recourse for his justification to the most unpardonable shift that ever was suggested by a desperate cause viz. to deny that he mean't exclusiveness of â—urisdiction that is to deny his own express words the whole tenour of his discourse there the main scope and intention of that Chapter ' and lastly to change and alter the state and face of the whole Question This is my present charge against him consisting of these foure branches which if they be proved from his own words he is judged by his own mouth and can hope for no pardon but the heaviest coÌ„demnation imaginable from all sincere Readers since it is impossible to imagin a fifth point from which he could prevaricate omitted by him and consequently his present prevarication is in the highest degree culpable and unpardonable First then his own express words manifest he mean't Exclusiveness of Iurisdiction For of Schism p. 70. he uses the very word exclusively saying that S. Peter was Apostle of the Iews exclusively to the Gentiles and that this exclusiveness was meant to be of Iurisdiction is no less expressely manifested from the following page where it is said that but one portion of the dispersed Iews can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Iurisdiction which is seconded by his express words here also Reply p. 56 the portion of one Apostle is so his that he hath no right to any other part Excludes him from any farther right c. and sure if he have no right to preach to any other Provinces he hath no Iurisdiction at all
flat Schismaticks But if you say 't is the same you are reuinc't by the plain matter of fact nay by the most undeniable force of self-evident terms since no first Principle can bee more clear than the leaving to hold what your immediate forefathers held was not to continue to hold what was held by the same forefathers and that to disclame their doctrine and discipline was not to inherit it After hee had told us that the Church of England and the Church of Rome both maintaine this Rule of faith that is indeed a different thing but the same words hee immediately disgraces the said Rule by adding that the question onely is who have changed that doctrine or this discipline wee or they the one by substraction the other by addition Which is as much as to say the pretended Rule is noe Rule at all or else that wee do not agree in it which yet hee immediately before pretended for sure that Rule can bee no Rule to him that follows it and yet is misled as one of us must necessarily bee who according to him hold the same Rule and yet different doctrines Either then there is no Rule of faith at all or if there bee one of us must necessarily have receded from that Rule and proceeded upon another ere hee could embrace'an errour or differ from the other It being known then and acknowledg'd that wee hold now the same Rule as wee did immediately before their Reformation that is the Tradition of immediately forefathers it is evident out of the very word Reformation that they both renounced the said Rule and wee continue in it Next hee assures his Reader that the case is clear to wit that wee have changed that doctrine discipline by addition This hee proves by the wildest Topick that ever came from a rationall head Because the Apostles contracted this doctrine into a summary that is the creed and the ancient Church forbad to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall profession whereas wee now exact more What a piece of wit is here did ever Protestant hold that there is nothing of faith but the 12. Articles in that creed doe not they hold that the Procession of the Holy Ghost the Baptism of Infants the Sacraments c. are the Legacies of the Apostles and so of faith yet not found in that creed Is it not of faith with them that there is such a thing as God's words though it bee not in that creed How then follows it that they have changed Christ's doctrine by addition who hold more points than are in that creed of the Apostles may not wee by the same Logick accuse the Church at the time of the Nicene Council who prest the word Consubstantiall to distinguish Catholicks from Arians nay may not wee by the self-same argument charge his own Church for making pressing the profession of their 39. Articles in which are many things as hee wel knows not found nor pretended to bee found in the Apostles creed What an incomparable strain of weaknes is it then to conclude us to have changed Christ's doctrine by addition from our obliging to more points than are found in that creed whereas 't is evident and acknowledg'd that very many points were held anciently and ever which are not put there And what a self contradicting absurdity is it to alledge for a reason against us that which makes much more against their own every way overthrown Congregation It being then manifest that the Apostles creed contains not all that is of faith it follows that it was not instituted as such by them or receiv'd as such by the ancient Church Let us see then to what end it served and how it was used by them the ignorance whereof puts the Bp. upon all this absurdity which hee might partly have corrected had hee reflected on his owne words Baptismall profession It is prudence in a Church and in any Government whatever not to admit any to their Communion or suffer them to live amongst them till they have sufficient cognizāce that they are affected to them and not to their Enemies party Hence at their Baptism the solemnity which admits persons into the Church they proposed to them some such form of tenets which they therefore call'd a symboll or badge as might distinguish them from all the other sects rife at that time for some time the Apostles creed was sufficient for that and to difference a Christian from all others because at the time it was made the rest of the world was in a manner either Pagans or Iews Afterwards when other Adversaries of the Church that is Hereticks arose against points not found in that creed it was necessary upon occasion to enlarge that Profession of faith or symboll soe as to signify a detestation of or an aversion from that heresy Either then the Bp. must say that no new heresy shall or can arise against any point not found in the creed and then the Anabaptist is iustify'd and made a member of the Chimericall Geryon-Shap't Church of England or else hee must grant that the Church when such arise must make new Professions or symbolls to distinguish friends from those foes unles shee will admit promiscuously into her Bowells Adversaries for friends a thing able to destroy any Commonwealth either Ecclesiasticall or temporall This is evident out of naturall prudence yet this is that which my L d D. carps at that when new up start heresies had risen the Church should ordain such a Profession of faith and cōsisting of such points as may stop the entrance of such into the Church As then if the reformed Congregation were to baptize one now at age and so make him one of their company none can doubt but it were prudence in her had shee any Grounds to own herself to bee a Church to ask him such questions first as should manifest hee were not a Socinian Anabaptist or Papist but Protestant-like affected that is propose to him a Profession of faith larger than is that of the creed for each of those sects admits this and yet differs from the Protestant so it could not bee imprudent in our Church when new heresies arose who yet admitted the creed to propose some larger form of Profession which might discover the affection of the party lest perhaps shee might make a free denizon of her community an arrant Adversary who came in cloakt and unexamind to work her all the mischief hee could Yet this due examination before-hand the Bp. calls changing of faith by addition thus perpetually goes common sence to wrack when Protestant Drs goe about to iustify their Schism and to make the non-sence more pithy hee calls this a clear case that wee have thus offended by addition Again hee tells us to confirm this that the Generall Council of Ephesus did forbid all men to exact any more of a Christian at his Baptismall Profession than the Apostles creed Which is first a very round
Evident reason and thine own eyes tell thee Reason tells thee 't is evident they renounc't those tenets which were the Principles of Vnity to the former Church both in faith and Government Reason tells thee that such a fact is in it's own nature schismaticall unles they can produce sufficient motives to iustify it Reason tells thee that noe motives less than certain that is demonstrative ones can suffice to alledge for such a revolt which yet they never pretend to Therefore reason tells thee and any one who understands morality and nature as evidently as that two and three are five that their revolt did not spring from the pure light of reason but from an irrationall Principle that is from passion and vice And so wee cannot but judge them obstinate and consequently Schismaticks unles they can show us these sufficient that is demonstrative reasons to excuse their otherwise manifestly schismaticall fact or if wee do wee must renounce the light of our own reason to do them an undeserved favour Thus much in generall Now as for this Bp. in particular Thou hast seen him shuffle up and down when hee should have answer'd to the charge objected Thou hast seen him wilfully mistake all over to evade answering Thou hast seen him totally omit so much as to mention one half of the charge and totally to avoid the whole import nay every tittle of the other There needs nothing but thine own eyes directed by any first Section to make all this evident to thee 'T is by these evident testimonies of thine eyes these undeniable verdicts of thy reason Reader by which thou must judge of these men whether they bee carefully inquisitive after readily embrace the truth or rather bee obstinate Schismaticks and not by the dark holes of their consciences which they assert to bee sincere by their bare sayings ouely obtrude them thus weakly authoriz'd upon they easy credulity and then tell thee thou must beleeve S. Austin that they are guiltles and acquitted from Schism In the second place I glanced at the inconsequence of his proof that those Bishops were not Protestants because they persecuted Protestants instancing in some sects of Protestants which persecuted others Hee replies what then were Watham and Heath c. all Protestants Then My Ld which is onely the question between us your argument was naught for let them bee accidentally what they will you cannot conclude them no Protestants from the persecuting Protestants as long as 't is shown and known that those who were Protestants did the same Secondly if they were Protestants hee demands of which sect they were I answer that as between every species of colour which wee have names for there are hundreds of middle degrees which have no names or as in a perpetuall motion there are millions of unnam'd proportions sow'd all along in it's progress to whose quantities wee can give no particular names so within the latitude of the name Protestant or Reformer and every sect of it there are thousands of others soe petite and minute that they have not deserved a name from the world I see the Bp. mistakes us and his own sect for hee makes account the Protestant Profession and it's subordinate sects are fixt things which may bee defined whereas Experience teaches us that the fellow in the fable might as easily have taken measure of the Moon to fit her right with a coat as one can imagin one notion to fit the word Protestant 'T is ever in motion like the rowling sea and therefore hath such an alloy of no ens in it that it admits noe positive definition but must bee described like a privation in order to the former habit No-Papist and a Reformer is the best character I can make of it Since then those Bishops were Reformers and no-Papists for they renounced the Pope's Authority which gives this denomination reformed in that point it follows that they were Protestants though the new-born thing was not as yet christend with any other name than that common one of Reformation But my Ld. D. makes account that none can bee a Protestant unles hee hold all which the now-Protestants doe Whereas 't is against nature and reason to expect that the Protestants could at first fall into all their present negative tenets nemo repentè fit turpissimus The former faults must by degrees get countenance by growing vulgar quotidian an by little little digest their shamefulnes ere the world could bee prepared to receive or men's minds apt and audacious enough to broach new ones First they renounc't one point then another and so forwards till at lenghth they have arrived to Quakerism which therefore is the full-grown fruit of the Reformation Thirdly whereas I told him those Bishops by renouncing the Pope held the most essentiall point of their Reformation and so had in them the quintessence of a Protestant The Bp. first calls this our Reformation as if wee had not ever held them Schismaticks that is separated from our Church for doing so Since then they went out from us by that fact they left to bee of us and if they were not of us how was it our Reformation in any other sence than as the Rebellion of those who were true subjects before is to bee imputed to those who remain true subjects still was ever common sence so abus'd Next hee braggs that then to wit if renouncing the Pope bee essentiall to a Protestant the Primitive Church were all Protestants which is onely sayd and flatly false that then all the Greciâ—n Russian Armenian Abyssen Christians are Protestants at this day which is onely said again and partly true partly false and that which is true onely steads him soe far as to evince that the Protestants are not the onely men but have fellow-Schismaticks And lastly that then they want not store of Protestants even in the bosome of the Roman Church it self which to speak moderately is an impudent falshood and a plain impossibility For who ere renounces the substance of the Pope's Authority and his being Head of the Church doth ipso facto renounce the Rule of Vnity of Government in our Church and by consequence the Rule of Vnity of faith which Grounds and asserts the former that is such a man renounces and breaks from all the Vnity of our Church and so becomes totally disunited from our Church Now how one who is totally disunited and separated from the whole body of our Church can bee intimately united to her still no understanding but the BP s can reach which as Mithridates could use poison for his daily food can without difficulty digest contradictions and findes them more connatural and nutritive to his cause than the solidest demonstrations Now if my L d D. bee not yet satisfy'd with my reasons p. 311. that the renouncing the Pope is essentiall to Protestantism to which yet hee is pleased to give no answer I send him to learn it of his friend Dr. H.
Authority deserved to bee abolish't for it's own sake as accompany'd with the sayd grievances Secondly the Bp. tells us that they seek not extirpation of the Papacy but the reducing it to the primitive constitution which is as good sence as to give a manabox on the ear and then tell him you intend not to strike him They have already totally extirpated it in England in such sort as all the world sees and acknowledges the Pope hath not the least influence upon the English Congregation over which before hee had the greatest yet they hope to bee taken for moderate men as long as they speak courteous non-sence and tell us they seek not to extirpate it Thus the Bp. wanders from the purpose but still all is my fault who would not grant him his two conditions Thirdly hee tells us that Monarchy and Episcopacy are of divine Institution so is not saith hee a Papall soueraignty of Iurisdiction That Monarchy should bee of divine Institution I much wonder surely the Venetians and Hollanders are in a sad case then who thus continue without relenting to break one of God's Commandments especially their Brethren the Hollanders who renounced the Monarchicall Government of the King of Spain But the learned Bp. hath some text or other in Scripture which hee interprets onely according to Grammar and Dictionary-learning without ever looking into Politicks the science which concerns such points passages which would have taught him that Government was instituted for the good of the Governed and that since human affairs are subject to perpetuall mutability and change it happens that in some countries and some circumstances one form of Government is convenient in others another according as it happens to bee best for the Governed which comes to this that no particular form of Government is of divine Institution and constituted to endure ever seing the end to which all Government is directed the good of the Governed is mutable and changeable As for the next part of his third excuse that the Pope's Authority or Headship in Iurisdiction is not of divine Institution as Episcopacy is you see 't is his old trick onely his own bare saying and which is worse saying over again the very point in dispute between us Whereas the point which wee urge here is a plain matter of fact that those who first renounc't the Papall Authority held immediately before they renounc't it as firmly that it was divine Institution as the Protestants do of Episcopacy now and therefore ought to have renounc't it upon the pretended pressure of inconveniencies no more than Episcopacy ought to bee abolish't upon the like inconveniences Nay more the first Reformers ere they grew newfangled and chang'd their mind held it much more firmly for they held it a point of faith and abhorr'd all them who renounc't it as Schismaticks and Hereticks both whereas the Protestants acknowledge the Huguenots of France for Brothers who yet deny Episcopacy which the Bp. tells us upon another occasion is of divine Institution But 't is all one with the Protestants whether they renounce all Christ's Institutions or no if they do but hate Rome they are saints and Brothers The common faction against the Pope is more powerfull to unite them than the professed and obstinate rejecting Christ's ordinances is to disunite them As for his Bravado how rarely hee could iustify his Parliamentary Prelacy what weak performances it would afford were it put to triall may bee judged from his numerous and enormous contradictions in this present treatise bragg'd on by the Protestants to bee his Master peece Sect. 6. How my Lâ— of Derry states the whole question false by pretending against the plain matter of fact that they separated onely from the Court and not from the Church of Rome His Grounds of separation shown insufficient in many regards nay confest such by himself granting there was another remedy besides division That the Reformers have neither left any open and certain method of coming to Christ's faith nor any form of Government in God's Church nor by consequence any Church His weak plea for England's independency from the Council of Ephesus Five palpable contradictions cluster'd together which the Bp. calls the Protestants more Experience than their Ancestors HIs sixth section pretends to vindicate his Grounds of separation to take notice of which the Bp. is violently importunate with the Reader bidding him observe and wonder Nor can I doe any less seeing such monstrous stuff throughout this whole Section It begins we are now come to the Grounds of our separation from the Court of Rome And this is the first Monster which the Bp's pen more fruitfull of such creatures than Africk it self proposes to our observation Which if it bee not as foul and uncouth an one as errour could hatch and obstinate Schism maintain you shall pay but pence a peece to see it and say I have abus'd you too The charge against the Protestants was this manifested by undeniable matter of fact that they had rejected the acknowledgment of S. Peters and his successours the Pope's Headhip over God's Church and that they had receded from this Rule of faith that nothing is to bee adhered to as of faith but what was inherited that is immediately delivered by their forefathers as the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles That they renounced the former is manifest by the whole worlds and their own Confession That they renounced the latter is no less manifest by the same undeniable attestation and indeed out of the very word Reformation which signifies a not immediate delivery It is no less evident that the acknowledgment of the former both was at the time of the Reformation and now is the Principle of Vnity in Government to those Churches in Communion with the see of Rome that is to all the Churches they themselves communicated with or were united to before they broke for 't is as visible as the sun at nonday that France Spain Portugal Italy c. consent and center in a ioynt acknowledgment of the Pope's Headship and are therefore held by Protestants Puritans and all contrary sects for Papist Countreys It is evident likewise that the acknowledgment of the latter was and is to the sayd Churches the Principle of Vnity in faith for they ever held the living voice of the Church that is the immediate Tradition or delivery of Pastours and forefathers an infallible Rule of faith wherefore ' it is unavoidably consequent that the Protestants dissenting from and disagreeing in both the sayd Principles in which these then-fellow Churches consented and agreed were and are separated from all those Churches and all that belong to those Churches And this according to the two sayd Principles Again since nothing can bee more essentiall to a Church than that which is the Rule and Root of Vnity both in faith and Government it follows that the Protestants dissenting in both and acting accordingly that is having separated according to both separated and
the said Rule of faith which brings faith to an uncertainty that is to a nullity or no obligation of holding any thing to bee of faith Yet this former Rule of faith the first Reformers renounc't when they renounced the Pope's Headship recommended by that Rule Sixthly the matter of fact not onely charges you to have rejected the Rules of Vnity in faith and Government in the Church you left and by consequence since both then and now you acknowledge her a true Church broke Church Communion but it is also equally evident that your Grounds since have left the Church no Rule of either but have substituted opinion in stead of faith or obscurity of Grammaticall quibbling in stead of Evidence of Authority and Anarchy in stead of Government For the Rule of faith if the former Church was so easy and certain a method of coming to Christ's law that none that had reason could bee either ignorant or doubtfull of it what easier than Children to beleeve as they were taught and practice as they were shownd What more impossible than for fathers to conspire to either errour or malice in teaching their Children what was most evident to them by daily practice of their whole lives to have been their immediately foregoing fathers doctrine and was most important to their and their Children's endles bliss or misery And what more evident than that they who proceed upon this principle as Catholikes do will alwaies continue and ever did to deliver embrace what was held formerly that is to conserve true faith Now in stead of this though the Protestants will tell us sometimes upon occasion that they hold to Tradition and at present beleeve their immediate forefathers yet if wee goe backward to King H. the 8th's time their chain of immediate delivery is interrupted and at an end the Reformation which they own broke that and shows their recourse to iâ— a false hearted pretence ours goes on still Whether run they then finding themselves at a loss here for an easy open and certain method of faith Why they turn your wits a woolgathering into a wildernes of words in the Scriptures ask them for a certain method to know the true sence of it they 'l tell you 't is plain or that you need no more but a Grammar and a dictionary to find out a faith nay less and that common people who neither understand what Grammar nor dictionary means may find it there though our eyes testify that all the world is together by the ears about understanding the sence of it Ask them for a certain interpreter perhaps sometimes they will answer you faintly that the generall Councils and fathers are one that is you must run over Libraries ere you can rationally embrace any faith at all and if you bee so sincere to your nature reason as to look for certainty which books are legitimate fathers which not which Councils generall authentick and to bee beleeved which not you are engag'd again to study all the School-disputes Controversies which concern those questions And if you repine at the endles laboriousnes of the task the insecurity of the method and the uncertainty of the issue and urge them for some other certainer shorter and plainer way of finding faith they will reply at length and confess as their best Champions Chillingworth and Faulkland do very candidly that there is no certainty of faith but probability onely which signifies that no man can rationally bee a Christian or have any obligation to beleeve any thing since it is both most irrationall and impossible there should bee any obligâ—tion to assent upon a probability And thus Reader thou se est what pass they bring faith and it's Vnity to to wit to a perfect nullity and totall ruin Next as for Government let us see whether they have left any Vnity of that in God's Church That which was held for God's Church by them while they continued with us were those Churches onely in Communion with the see of Rome the Vnity of Government in this Church was evident and known to all in what it consisted to wit in the common acknowledment of the Bishop of Rome as it's Head Since they left that mother they have got new Brothers and sisters whom before they accounted Bastards and Aliens so that God's Church now according to them is made up of Greeks Lutherans Huguenots perhaps Socinians Presbyterians Adamites Quakers c. For they give no Ground nor have any certain Rule of faith to discern which are of it which not But wee will pitch upon their acknowledg'd favourites First the Church of England holds the King the Head of their Church Next the Huguenots whom they own for dear Brothers and part of God's Church hold neither King nor yet Bishop but the Presbyteâ—y onely strange Vnity which stands in terms of contradiction Thirdly the Papists are accounted by them lest they should spoil their own Mission part of God's Church too and these acknowledge noe Head but the Pope Fourthly the Lutherans are a part of their kind hearted Church and amongst them for the most part each parish-Minister is Head of his Church or Parish without any subordination to any higher Ecclesiasticall Governour Lastly the Greek Church is held by them another part and it acknowledges no Head but the Patriarch I omit those sects who own no Government at all Is not this now a brave Vnity where there are five disparate forms of Government which stand aloof and at arms end with one another without any commonty to unite or connect them Let them not toy it now as they use and tell us of an union of charity our discourse is about an Vnity of Government either then let him show that God's Church as cast in this mold has an Vnity within the limits and notion of Government thaâ— is any commonty to subscribe to some one sort of Government either acknowledg'd to have been instituted by Christ or agreed on by common coÌ„sent of those in this new-fashion'd Church or else let him confess that this Church thus patch't up has no Vnity in Government at all Wee will do the Bishop a greater favour and give him leave to set aside the french Church and the rest and onely reflect upon the form of Government they substituted to that which they rejected to wit that the King or temporall power should bee supreme in Ecclesiasticall Affairs Bee it so then and that each particular pretended Church in the world were thus govern'd wee see that they of England under their King would make one Church they of Holland under their Hogen Moghen Magistrates another France under it's King a third and so all the rest of the countries in the world Many Churches wee see here indeed in those Grounds and many distinct independent Governours but where is there any Vnity of Government for the whole where is there any supreme Governour or Governours to whom all are bound to submit and conform themselves in the
nor was pretended by mee as such but as a consideration which much aggravates the charge and obliges in all reason the renouncers of this Authority to look very charily to the sufficiency of the causes of thâ—t their division For since it follows out of the terms that ere they renounced it and by thus renouncing it left to bee Catholikes they immediately before held it as Catholikes do that is held it as a point of faith and of Christ's Institution and since it is evident that none ought to change his faith which hee and his Ancestours immemorially embrac'd but upon evident Grounds again since it is evident likewise and confest that temporall motives ought not to make us break Christ's commands which is done by rejecting a Government which hee instituted Two things are consequent hence to their disadvantage one that their motives ought to bee rigoro sly evident and demonstrative for their renouncing it since dâ—nger of damnation ensves upon their miscarriage and this even in their own thoughts as they were lay'd in their minds when they first began to meditate a breach The other that the pretended causes especially temporall inconveniences for the abolishing this Authority can no waies iustify the first breakers who held it formerly a point of faith since no iust causes can bee given to renounce an Authority held to bee instituted by Christ As then it had been rationall to Reply to King H. the 8th remaining yet a Catholike and beginning to have thoughts to abolish this Authority upon such and such temporall inconveniences that his maiesty and his Ancestours had held it of divine Institution and that therefore there could bee no iust cause to abolish it so it is equally seasonable to Reply to my Lord of Derry who undertakes here to vindicate him by alledging the same thing that these causes nor any else were sufficient to make them begin to break because ere they begun the breach they held this Authority to bee of Christ's Institution and therefore it is a folly for him to think to iustify them by huddling together causes and motives and crying them up for sufficient till hee can show they had Evidence of the Truth of the opposite point greater than the pretended Evidence of Authority universall Tradition which they actually had for their former tenet If a cause bee sufficient to produce an effect and equally apply'd 'tis manifest the same effect will follow Hence as an argument of the insufficiency of their motives of Division I alledged that all other Catholike countries had the same exceptions yet neither broke formerly nor follow your Example Hee answers first Few or none have sustain'd so great oppression which signifies I know not well whether any have or no or for any thing I know some have Nor does hee prove the contrary otherwise than by a pleasant saying of a certain Pope Any thing will serve him Next hee tells us all other countries have not right to the Cyprian priviledges as Brittain hath And how proves hee that this country had any by that Council Is England named in the Council of Ephesus which exempted Cyprus from the Patriarch of Antioch No. Is Brittain at least No. How come wee then to bee particularly priviledg'd by that Council Why the Bp. of Derry thinks so His Grounds Because that Council ordains that no Bp. should occupy a Province which was not from the beginning under his Predecessours And how proves hee the application that England was never anciently under the Pope as Head of the Church from Sr Henry Spelman's old-new manuscript and two or three raggs of History or misunderstood Testimonies Are they demonstrative or rigorous Evidences Here my Ld is wisely silent Will less serve than such proofs to iustify such a separation Hee is silent again Were they a thousand times as many are they of a weight comparable to a world of witnesses proceeding upon the Grounds of immediate dâ—livery from hand to hand which recommended and ascertain'd the contrary Alas hee never thinks of nor considers that at all but very wisely puts his light grains in one end of the scales negl â—cting to put our pounds in the other and then brags that his thin grains are overweight The third particularizing motive is his own unprou'd saying and is concluded with a boast that hee is not the onely schismatick in the world but hath Brothers Is this the way to argue against us To call all those Christians which profess the name of Christ and communicate with himself in the same guilt and then say hee hath fellows in his schism Hee knows wee grant them not to bee truly-call'd Christians but in the name onely and equivocally as a painted man is styld ' a man If hee will show that any Congregation of truly-call'd Christians partakes with him in the separation from Rome let him show that these pretended Christians for those points in which they differ from us did not renounce the onely certain Rule of faith Tradition or delivery of immediate forefathers or that there is any certain and infallible Rule but that Otherwise they are cut of from the Rule and Root of faith and by consequence not in a true appellation to bee call'd faithfull or Christians otherwise they heard not the immediately foregoing Church for those points which they innovated and so are to us no properly call'd Christians but according to our saviours counsell as Heathens and publicans I mean those who knowingly wilfully separated Talking voluntarily my Ld according to the dictates of your own fancy will not serve in a rigorous Controversy First show that those you call Christians have any infallible or certain Rule of faith and so any faith and that they have not onely a probable and fallible GrouÌ„d that is opinion onely for their faith and then you shall contradict your own best and more candid writers who confess it in terms and do such a miracle as your Ancestours never attain'd to nor any of wit and ingenuity attempted seeing it impossible to bee done rationally I alledged in the next place to show more their inexcusablenes and the infussiciency of their pretended motives for breaking the example of our own country and forefathers who had the same cause to cast the Pope's Supremacy of the Land yet rather proferr'd to continue in the peace of the Church than to attâ—mpt so destructive an innovation The Bp. replies first that wee should not mistake them aâ—d that they still desire to live in the Communion of the Catholike Church c. No my Ld I doe not mistake you but know very well you would bee willing and glad too the former Church should own you for hers I doubt not but you are apprehensive enough of what honour would accrue to you if wee would account you true Catholikes and what disgrace you get by being accounted Hereticks and Schismaticks by us But yet your desire of staying in the Church is conditionall that you may bee permitted to remain
hee sayes p. 21. are equivalent to those of England which hee pretends here not to bee sufficient it follows that the laws of other countries were equivalent to those of England but those of England not equivalent to them or that though equivalent to one another that is of equall force yet the one was sufficient the others not that is of less force And thirdly that all Catholike countries did maintain their priviledges inviolate by means which did not maintain them or by laws which were not sufficient to do it Lastly hee tells us p. 20. that the former laws deny'd the Pope any Authority in England and p. 21. l. 9. that those laws were in force before the breach that is did actually leave him no Authority in England and here that those nationall laws were not sufficient remedies Whence 't is manifestly consequent according to him that those laws which deny'd the Pope all Authority and were actually in force that is actually left him none were not sufficient remedies against the Abuses of that Authority which they had quite taken a way And this plenty of contradictions the Bp's book is admirably stor'd with which are his demonstrations to vindicate his Church from Schism onely hee christens the monstrous things with a finer name and calls them their greater experience Whereas indeed as for more experience hee brags of God know poor men 't is onely that which Eve got by eating the Apple the expeperience of evill added to that which they had formerly of good Their Ancestors experienc't an happy Vnity Vnanimity Vniformity and constancy in the same faith while they remain'd united to the former Church and they since their breach have experienc't nothing but the contrary to wit distractions dissentions Vnconformity with a perpetually-fleeting Changeablenes of their tenet and at last an utter dissolution and disapparition of their Mock Church built onely in the Air of phantastick probabilities In the last place I alledged that the pretences upon which the Schism was originally made were far different from those hee now takes up to defend it For it is well known that had the Pope consented that K. H. might put away his wife and marry another there had been no thoughts of renouncing his Auâ—hority Which shows that at most the scales were but equally ballanc't before and the motives not sufficient to make them break till this consideration cast them A great prejudice to the sufficiency of the other reasons you alledge which you grant in the next page were most certainly then obseru'd or the greatest part of them For since they were observed then that is since the same causes were apply'd then apt to work upon men's minds those same causes had been also formerly efficacious that is had formerly produc't the effect of separating as well as now had there not been now some particular disposition in the patient and what particular disposition can bee shown at the instant of breaking save the King's lust which was most manifest and evident I confess I cannot imagin nor as I am persuaded the Bp. himself at least hee tells us none but onely in generall terms sayes they had more experience than their Ancestours Sect. 7. The first part of the Protestant's Moderation exprest by my L d of Derry in six peeces of non-sence and contradiction with an utter ruin of all Order and Government His pretended undeniable Principles very easily and rationally deny'd His Churche's inward charity and the speciall externall work thereof as hee calls it her Good-friday-Prayer found to bee self contradictory Pretences His Moderation in calling those tenets Weeds which hee cannot digest and indifferent Opinions which hee will not bee obliged to hold That according to Protestant Grounds 't is impossible to know any Catholike Church or which sects are of it HIs next Head is the due Moderation of the Church of England in their reformation This I called a pleasant Topick Hee answers so were the saddest subjects to Democritus I Reply the subject is indeed very sad for never was a sadder peece of Logick produced by a non-plust Sophister yet withall so mirthfull as it would move laughter even in Heraclitus The first point of their Moderation is this that they deny not the true being to other Churches nor separate from the Churches but from their accidentall errors Now the matter of fact hath evidenced undeniably that they separated from those points which were the Principles of vnitie both in faith GovernmeÌ„t to the former Church with which they communicated and consequently from all the persons which held those Principles and had their separation been exprest in these plain terms and true language nothing had sounded more intolerable and immoderate wherefore my L d took order to use his own bare Authority to moderate and reform the truth of these points into pretended erroneousnes and the concerningnes or fundamentalnes of them into an onely accidentalnes and then all is well and hee is presently if wee will beleeve his word against our owne eyes a moderate man and so are the Protestans too who participate his Moderation But if wee demand what could be Essentiall to the former Church if these too Principles renounced by them which grounded all that was good in her were accidentall onely or how he can iustly hold her a true Church whose fundâ—mentall of fundamentalls the Root Rule of all her faith was as he saies here an error his candid answer would shew us what common sence already informs us that nothing could be either Essentiall or fundamentall to that Church And so this pretended Moderation would vanish on one side into plain non-sence in thinking any thing could be more Essentiall to a Church then Vniâ—y of faith and Government on the other side into meer folly and indeed coÌ„tradiction in holding her a true Church whose Grounds of both that is of all which should make her a true Church are Errors Lies His Church of England defines Art 19. that our Church erres in matters of faith Art 22. that four points of our faith are vain fictions contradictory to God's word The like character is given of another point Art 28. Our highest act of deuotion Art 31. is styled a blasphemous fiction pernicious imposture and Art 33. that those who are cut of from the Church publikely I conceive they mean Catholikes or at least include them whom they used to excommunicate publikely in their Assemblies should be held as Heathens and Publicans Again nothing was more uncontrollably nay more laudably common in the mouths of their Preachers then to call the Pope Antichrist the Church of Rome the whore of Babylon Idolatrous Superstitious Blasphemous c. And to make up the measure of his fore fathers sins the Bp. calls here those two Principles of Vnity both in faith Government without which she neither hath nor can have any thing of Church in her as hath been shown in the foregoing Section both Errors and falshoods Now
the opposite is false nor hold his own certain without censuring another man's Good Reader reflect a little upon this proposition he cavills at and then take if thou canst the just dimensions of the unmeasurable weaknes of error and it's Abettors Do not truth and certainty involve essentially in their notions an oppositenes and contrarietie to falshood error Does not true signifie not-false How is it possible then a man indued with the common light of reason can hold a thing true and yet not hold it 's opposite false yet this plain self evident proposition in other terms the self-same with this that a thing cannot both be not be at once is denied by the Bp. nay accounted disgracefull to hold it Whereas indeed it is not mine nor the Donatists onely but the common Principle of nature which the silliest old wife and least boy come to the use of reason cannot but know Error prest home cannot burst out at length into less absurdities than denying the first Principles The Bishop of Derry having shown us how well skill'd he is in Principles by renouncing that first Nature-taught one proceeds immediately to establish some Principles of his own which he calls evident undeniable so to confute the former The first is that particular Churches may fall into error where if by Errors he means opinions onely 't is true if points of faith 't is not so undeniable as he thinks in case that particular Church adhere firmly to her Rule of faith immediate Tradition for that point already there setled that is if shee proceed as a Church If he wonder at this I shall increase his admiration by letting him know my minde that I see it not possible how even the pretended Protestants Church of England could it without self condemnation have owned the immediate delivery of fore fathers and onely proceeded stuck close to that Rule should ever come to vary from the former Protestant Beleef for as long as the now fathers taught their Children what was held now and the Children without looking farther beleeved their fathers and taught their Children as they beleeved and so successively it followes in terms that the posterity remote a thousand generations would still beleeve as their fathers do now But as their religion built on Reformation that is not immediate Tradition will not let them own immediate Tradition for their Rule of faith so neither did they own it could their certainty arrive to that of our Churches strengthen'd by so many super-added assistances His second Principle is that all errors are not Essentiall or fundamentall I answer that if by Errors he means onely opinions as he seems to say in the next paragraph then none at all are Essentiall but what is this to my proposition which spoke of Religion not of opinions unles perhaps which is most likely consonant to the Protestant Grounds the Bishop makes account that Religion and opinion are all one But if he means Error in a matter of faith then every such error is fundamentall and to answer this third Principle with the same labour destroies the being of a Church For since a Church must necessarily have a Rule of faith otherwise she were no Church and that 't is impossible to conceive how man's nature should let her proceed so quite contrary to her Principles as to hold a thing as a matter of faith not proceeding upon her onely Rule of faith this being a flat contradiction Again since the Rule of faith must be both certain and plain without which properties 'tis no Rule it follows that an error in a matter of faith argues an erroneousnes in the Rule of faith which essentially and fundamentally concerns the being of a Church His fourth Principle is that every one is bound according to the just extent of his power to free himself from those not essentiall errors Why so my L d if those errors be not essentiall they leave according to your own Grounds sufficient means of Salvation and the true being of a Church How prove you then that you ought to break Church Communion which is essentially destructive to the being of a Church to remedy this or hazard your Salvation as you know well Schism does when you might have rested secure Is it an evident and undeniable Principle that you ought to break that in which consists the being of a Church to remedy that which you confess can consist with the being of a Church or is it an undeniable Principle that you ought to endanger your soul where you grant there is no necessity Say not I suppose things gratis your friend Dr. H. tells you out of the fathers how horrid a crime Schism is how vtterly unexcusable the undeniable evidence of fact manifests you to have broke Church Communion that is to have Schismatized from the former Church which you must be forced to grant unles you can show us that you still maintain the former Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government These are the points which you violently broke and rejected show either that these were not fundamentally concerning the Vnity and cōsequently the Entity of the former Church or else confess that you had no just cause of renouncing them and so that you are plainly both Schismatick Heretick But 't is sufficient for your Lp's pretence of Moderation without so much as mentioning them in particular to say here in generall terms that the points you renounc'd were not essentiall were accidentall were errors vlcers opinions hay stubble the plague weeds c. And thus ends the first part of your wisely maintained Moderation as full of contradictions absurdities as of words The second proof of their Moderation is their inward charity I love to see charity appearing out-wardly me thinks hanging and persecution disguize her very much and your still clamorous noises against us envying us even that poore happines that we are able with very much a doe to keep our heads above water and not sink utterly He proves this in ward charity by their externall works as he calls them their prayers for us He should have said words the former were their works and prou'd nothing but their malice But let us examin their prayers they pray for us he sayes daily and we do the same for them nay more many of ours hazard their lives daily to do good to the souls even of themselves our enemies and to free them as much as in us lies from a beleeved danger Which shows now the greater charity But their speciall externall work as he calls it is their solemn anniversary prayer for our conversion every good friday And this he thinks is a speciall peece of charity in their Church being ignorant good man that this very thing is the solemn custome of our Church every good friday as is to be seen in our Missall and borrowed thence by their book of common prayer among many other things But let us see whether the Protestants
Church yet we see Protestants communicate with them aswell nay more than with Anabaptists nor are they look't upon with a different eye from the other sects or as more separated from the Church than the rest Again as Puritans are excluded by this Principle so all that reject any thing but these twelve Articles are admitted by it as part of God's Church Hence it follows that though any sect deny the Government of the Church by King by Bishops by Pope by Patriarch by Lay-elders by private Ministers nay all Government the Procession of the holy Ghost all the Sacraments nay all the whole Scripture except what interferes with those twelve points are members of God's Church Reader canst thou imagin a greater blasphemy Again when he says the Apostle's creed is onely necessary and fundamentall he either mean's the words of the Apostles creed onely or the sence meaning of it If the former the Socinians and Arians hold it whom yet I conceive he thinks no part of God's Church If the latter either the Protestants or we must be excluded contrary to his tenet from the universall Church for since points of faith are sence and we take two Articles to wit that of Christ's descending into Hell that of the Catholike Church in a different sence it follows that we have different points of our creed or different creeds and therefore either we or they must fundamentally err and be none of the universall Church Where then is this determinate universall Church or how shall we finde it by the Protestants Principles no certain mean's being left to determin which Congregations are worthy to be call'd particular Churches and so fit to compound that universall which not to be excluded from her For the second point in case there were many particular Churches yet an universall signifies one universall every universality involving an Vnity and so they must have some ty to vnite them according to the natures of those particulars Now those particulars consist of men governable according to Christ's law and so the whole must be a body united by order and Government for things of the same species or kinde cannot be otherwise exteriorly united But I have already shown in the foregoing Section that the Protestants Grounds have left no such order subordination of universall Government in God's Church therefore no universall Christian Common-wealth that is no universall Church To show then this determinate universall Church being the proper answer for the Bishop let me see how he be haves himself in this point First he toyes it childishly telling us that the Protestants acknowledge not indeed a virtuall Church that is one man who is as infallible as the universall Church I answer nor wee neither Ere he calumniates the Church with any such pretended tenets let him show out of her decrees they were hers otherwise if he will dispute against private men let him quote his Authors fall to work Secondly he tells us they acknowledge a Representative Church that is a generall Councill with signifies nothing unles they first determing certainly who are good Christians and fitt to vote there who Hereticks so vnfit that is till they show what Congregations are truly to be called Churches and what Church made up of such and such is to be esteemed universall otherwise how can a Representative of the universall Church which is a relative word be understood to be such unles it be first known which is the universall Church it ought to represent Thirdly he tells us they acknowledge an Essentiall Church I marry now we come to the point Expect now Reader a determinate universall Church so particularly character'd that thou canst not fail to acknowledge it The Essentiall Church that is saith he the multitude or multitudes of beleevers His that is seem'd to promise us some determinate mark of this Church and he onely varies the phrase into beleevers a word equally obscure as the former equally questionable nay the self same question For 't is all one to ask which is a Congregation of right beleevers as to ask which is a true Church But this is his vsuall and even thrid bare trick with which Mountebanklike he deludes his Readers and is too much inveterate in his manner of writing ever to hope to wean him of it They can do no more than shuffle about in Generall terms hold still to indeterminate confused universall expressions who have no Grounds to carry home to particular things He concludes with telling his Reader that we are in five or six severall opinions what Catholike Church is into which we make the last resolution of our faith Whither away my Lord The question at present is not about the resolution of faith nor about the formall definition of a Church but about what visible materiall persons countries make up the Church That you cannot pitch upon these in particular I have already shown that we can is as visible as the sun at noon day to wit those countries in Communion with the See of Rome These and no other are to us parts of the uniuersall Church Every ordinary fellow of your or our side can tell you what these are 't is as easie to do it as to know which is a Papist-Country as you call it which not And even in those places where they live mixt with others as in England they are distingvishable from others by most visible Marks Our Rule to distinguish our flock from Stragglers is the acknowledgment of immediate Tradition for the Rule Root of faith and of the present Government of our Church under S. Peter's successor who so ever renounced this Government or differ'd from us in any other point recommended by that Rule at the same time and in the same act renounced the said ever constantly certain Rule and by renouncing it their being of the Church as did your selves confessedly in the reign of King Henry the 8th and the Greeks with all out casts for those points in which they differ from us To this all Catholikes agree what ever school men dispute about the Resolution of faith Show us a Church thus pointed out visibly and such evident manifest Grounds why just so many and more can be of it or els confess you have lost the notion of an universall Church nor hold or know any Sect. 8. Nine or ten self contradictions in one Section How hee clears our Religion and condemns his own The Incoherence of the former Protestans blody laws with their own Principles How hee steals by false pretence from showing a visiblety of Vnity in the Church to invisible holes The reason why the succession into S. Peter's dignity should continue to the Bp. of Rome Plentifull variety of follies non-sence and quibbling mistakes The sleight account hee gives of the order Brother hood and fundamentalls of his Church HIs 8th Section presents us with his fifth Ground to iustify their separation and 't is this that the King
which such things were done In Answer the Bishop pretends first that hee will take my frame in peeces whereas hee not so much as handles it or looks upon it formine concern'd a Visible ty of Church Vnity his discourse reckons up out of S. Paul seven particulars all which except onely the common Sacrament of Baptism are invisible latent some of them no wayes proper to a Church The first is one Body Well leap't again my L d you are to prove first we are one Body if the Vnity of Government conseru'd by all those who acknowledge the Popes Head ship be taken away by you but you suppose this and then ask what can be more prodigious then for the members of the same Body to war with one another wee were inded once one Body and as long as the meÌ„bers remain'd worthy of that Body there was no warr between them But as when some member becomes corrupted the rest of the members if they do wisely take order to cut it of lest it infect the rest so 't was no prodigy but reason that the members of the former Church should excommunicate or cut you of when you would needs be infected and obstinacy had made you incurable nay when you would needs be no longer of that Body The former Body was One by having a visible Head common nerves Ligatures of Government Discipline united in that Head the lifeâ—giving Blood of faith essentiall to the faithfull as faithâ—full derived to those members by the common Channells or veins of immediate Tradition You separated from that Head you broke aâ—sunder those nerves of Government you stop'tâ—up and interrupted those Channells or veins the onely passage for divine beleef that is certainty grounded faith your task then is to show us by visible tokens that is by common exterior ties that you are one Body with us still not to suppose it and talk a line or two sleightly upon that groundles supposition Secondly one Spirit that is the Holy Ghost which hee rightly styles the common soul of the Church But his Lp must prove first that they are of the Body of the Church ere they can claim to be informed by the Soul of it It is not enough to talk of the Spirit which is latent invisible Quaker or Adamite can pretend that at pleasure but you must show us visible Marks that you are of that Body and so capable to have the same Spirit or Soul otherwise how will you convince to the world that you have right to that Spirit Thirdly one hope of our calling This token is both invisible again and besides makes all to be of one Church Iews all if they but say tthey hope to go to Heaven who will stick to say that Fourthly one Lord in order to which hee tells us wee must be friends because wee serve the same Lord Dark again How shall wee know they serve the same Lord Because they cry Lord Lord or because they call him Lord Their visible acts must decide that If then wee see with our eyes that they have broke in peeces his Church renounced the only-certain Grounds of his law they must eithers how us better Symptoms of their service and restore both to their former integrity by reacknowledging them else wee can not account them fellow servants to this Lord but Rebells enemies against this Lord his Church Fifthly one faith But how they should have one faith with us who differ from us in the onely certain that is in the onely Rule of faith as also in the sence that is in the thing or tenet of some Articles in the creed or indeed how they can have faith at all but opinion onely whose best Authors writers confess they have no more than probability to Ground their faith hee knows not so sayes nothing and therefore is not to be beleeu'd for barely saying wee have one faith Sixthly one Baptism As if Hereticks who are out of the Church could not all be baptised But hee tells us that by Baptism wee fight vnder the same Standard That wee should do so because of Baptism I grant indeed But as hee who wears the colours of his Generall yet deserts his Army fights against it will find his colours or Badgeso far from excusing him that they render him more liable to the rigour of Martiall law treatable as a greater enemy so the badge of Christianity received in Baptism is so far from being a plea for them who are out of the Church or for making them esteemed one of Christ's and hers if they run away from her take party against her that it much more hainously enhances their accusation and condemns you whom the undeniable matter of fact joyn'd with your acknowledgment of ours for a true Church manifests most evidently to have done both Lastly one God who is father of all c. By which if it be mean't that God is a father by Creation or ordinary Providence them Iews Pagans Atheists are of God's Church too if in the sence as God is fathers of Christians you must first prove that you have his Church on earth for your Mother ere you can claim God in Heaven for your father But to shew how weak a writer this Bp. is let the Reader peruse here my p. 324. 326. and hee shall see our charges is that without this Government they have no common ty under that notion to vnite them into one Christian common wealth and therefore that having rejected that Government unles they can show us what other visible ty they have substituted to that they cannot be shown to be Christians or of Christ's flock but separates Aliens from it Wee deny them to be truly-nam'd Christians for want of such a visible ty now the Bishop instead of showing us this supposes all hee was to prove towit that they are of Christ's Church and reckons up some invisible motives proposed by S. Paul to Christians already acknowledg'd for such to vnite them not into one Church for that was presupposed but into one harmony of affections There is no doubt then but all the seven points alledged are strong motives to vnite Christians in Wills but it is as undoubted on the other side that none of them onely pretended and being invisible they can be but pretended is a sufficient Mark to know who is a true Christian who not nor was this S. Paul's intent as appears by the quality of the persons hee writes to who were all Christians Now Christians being such because of their faith it followes that the Vnity in faith is the property to Christians as such and consequently in Government which by reason of it's concernment ought in all reason to bee a point of faith not in charity onely for this extends it self to Infidells all the world Since then the Bp. goes not about to show visibly their Ground for vnity of faith that is a
imaginarily ghesses which you must conceive will bee in Antichrist's time who according to their principles will bee the Head of the Church And lastly that they have a gracious Prince for a politicall Head Whos 's inward right if it bee lost by long prescription as the whole world grants it many it follows that they can in that case pretend to no Head at all in case the successour hap to bee no Protestant But I wonder the Bishop is so discourteous to his own tenet that whereas they ever held the King to bee Head of the Church or cheif in Ecclesiasticall matters hee should now deny it and put him to bee onely a politicall Head as contradistinguish't from Ecclesiasticall that is give him no more then France Spain c. Vse to do to their Kings where the Pope's Headship is acknowledg'd Again wee ask not how they are one amongsts themselves in England under one pretended visible Head or Government but how they are one with the rest of the Christian world though having that pretended Head Is there any orderly common ty of Government obliging this Head to correspend with the other Head If not where is the Vnity or common Headship of the whole Church or how is England visibly united to it vnder this notion If there bee why should the Bp envy us the happy sight of this rarity which onely which would satisfy the point clear his credit vindicate his Church His cavill that sometimes wee have two or three Heads sometimes never an Head is false groundles since there can bee but one true or rightly-chosen Pope however there may bee more pretended ones and till hee who is chosen bee known euidenced to bee such the Headship or cheif Government is in the cheif Clergy of the chief see whom wee call Cardinalls unles a generall Council actually sit As secure a method for the peace Vnity of a Commonwealth govern'd by an elective power as mans wit can invent though as in all humane affairs the contingency of the subject admits sometimes of miscarriages sidings animosities Hee promises us to shew the Vnity of Protestant Churches amongst themselves that the Harmony of Confessions will demonstrata to the world that their Controversies are not so many nor of so great moment as imagining I answer that truly I am so far from imagining any thing concerning their differences that I know not even what the word Contreversy means till they give us some certain Rule to settle Controversies to tell us which Controversies are of faith which of opinion onely But does the Harmony of Confessions show us not in the common expressions of the word but in the particularity of the thing that they have one common certain Rule of faith infallibly securing then that such points no other were taught by Christ and his Apostles or any particular sort of Government obliging them to an Vnity under the notion of Governed as a common ty Nothingless that is it does less than nothing and leaves my other objection good that otherwise they have no more Vnity then a body composed of Turks Iews Hereticks and Christians Nor does the Bp. disprove it otherwise than by reckoning up again the former motives to Vnity in affections out of S. Paul Six of which are invisible and some of them equally pretendable nay actually pretended by Turks Hereticks c. As deniable to them by him nor can they be in reason refused them till hee gives us some certain Rule of faith obligingly satisfactorily convincing that such sects in particular are to be admitted such to bee absolutely rejected which hee will never do without entangling himself worse than formerly And as for Baptism the seveâ—th motive 't is out of doubt amongst all the world that Hereticks may have true Baptism though the Bp. here forgets himself says the contrary At least the Turks Ianisaries who are children of Christians so Baptised cannot bee refused according to his Grounds to bee his Brother-Protestants this being the onely visible ty the Protestants have with the three parts of the world the Bp. so brags of Lastly I alledged that their pretended faith consisted in vnknown fundamentalls which is a meere Shist untill they exhibit a list of such points prove them satisfactorily that they onely they are essentiall to Christian Communion Hee replies they need not do it Why mee thinks the point seems very needfull yes but the Apostles have done it hee sayes to their hands in the creed And how proves hee that the Apostles intended this creed as a list of all fundamentalls onely for hee put neither before nor yet here any other proof in that the Primitive Church saith hee hath ordained that no more should bee exacted of any of Turks or Iews in point of faith when they were converted from Paganism or Iewism to Christianity And how proves hee the Primitive Church exacted no more out of his own manifold falsification of the Council of Ephesus already manifested Sect. 1. And this is the whole Ground of his certainty that those points are onely fundamentall or that they have any list of fundamentalls and consequently that there is any Grounds of Vnity in materiall points amongst the Protestant Churches or that they are of the Church since the Church hath in her self Grounds of Vnity I omit that the learned Bp. makes account Turks are Pagans or to bee converted from Paganism whereas 't is known they acknowledge a God and affirms that the Primitive Church in the Council of Ephesus for to this hee relates as appears p. 5. held in the year 430. order'd any thing concerning Turks which sect sprang not till the year 630. that is 200. years after Both good sport did not the Bp. cloy us with such scenes of mirth Again when hee saies the Apostles creed is a list of all fundamentalls either hee means the letter of the creed and then hee grants Socinians Arians to bee Christians both which admit the letter of the creed interpreted their own way and excludes the Puritans from all hopes of Salvation for denying a fundamentall towit Christs descent into Hell Or else hee means the sence of the creed and then hee excludes the Roman Catholikes whom yet in other circumstances hee acknowledges to bee of the Church for they hold some Articles found there in another sence than do the Protestants Let him then prove evidently that no points of faith were held formerly as necessary save those Articles in the Apostles creed next tell us whether hee means the letter onely or the sence of the creed then show us satisfactorily which is the onely true sence of it and lastly apply that piece of doctrine to particulars and so show us which sects are of the Church which excluded wee shall remain very much edifyd Sect. 9. How the Bp. of Derry falsifies his Adversary's words brings a Testimony against himself attended by a direct contradiction which hee
preteÌ„d to treat a point of Canon-Law I might The point of faith I undertook to defend as a Controvertist whensoever I see any opposition to that I acknowledge it my Province to secure it by my resistance Sect. 10. My L d of Derry's vain pretence of his Churches large Communion His frivolous and groundles exceptions against the Council of Trent How weakly hee clears himself of calumny And how going about to excuse his citing a Testimony against himself hee brings three or four proofs to make good the accusation HEe pretended that the Protestants held Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do I reply'd that if by Christians hea means those who lay claim to the name of Christ I neither deny'd his Answer nor envy'd him his multitude for Manichees Gnosticks Carpocratians Arians Nestorians Eutychians and others without number do all usurp the honour of this title I added that I did not think hee had any solid reason to refuse Communion to the worst of them Now the Bp ' s task is evidently this to give us this solid reason show it conclusive why hee admits some of these rejects others But 't is against his humour to go about to prove any thing Talking is his an angry woman's best weapon and of voluntary talk he is not niggardly but deals us largess of it First hee falls into rhetoricall exclamations against our prejudice partiality want of truth charity candour ingenuity Words are but vapour let him put certainly-establish't Grounds to conclude himself or any of his sects true Christians which may not as well infer that all those other sects are such also otherwise his exclâ—mations which sound so high in Rhetorick are very-flat noted and signify just nothing in Controversy where the concernment of the subject renders all proofs inferior to rigorous convincing discourse dull toyish Secondly hee asks wherein can I or all the world charge the Church of England of Greece or any of the Eastern Southern or Northern Christians with any of these Heresies and then reckons up afterwards the materiall points held by the Manichees Gnosticks c. Suppose I could not are there no other heresies in the world but these old ones or is it impossible that a new heresy should arise It was not for holding those very materiall points that I accused the Church of England or the Bp. as hee purposely misrepresents mee but this that having no determinate certain Rule of faith they had no Grounds to reject any from their Communion who held some common points of Christianity with them though differing in others Again since the Rule of faith Protestants pretend to is the Scripture and all those Hereticks recurr'd still rely'd upon the same nay even the Manichees upon the new Testament it follows that these are all of the Protestants Communion because they have the same Grounds Rule of their faith if the Bp. reply that the letter of the Scripture is not the Rule of faith but the sence hee must either show us some determinate certain way to arrive to the true sence of it or else confess that this Rule is indeterminate uncertain that is as far as it concerns us none at all Now though indeed the Protestants hapt not to light into all the same materiall errors as did the Manichees Arians c. Yet they agree with them in the source of all error that is in having deny'd and renounc't the onely Ground of faiths certainty Tradition of immediate forefathers which alone could bring down to us security that Christ was God or that there was such a thing as God's word and so the deniall of this is in it's consequences equally nay more pestilentiall then is the denying the materiall point it self of Christ's divinity or the asserting any other held by the worst of those Hereticks They agree with them all therefore in the root of all errors though the branches chance and they but chance to be diverse as may bee seen if you do but consider what varieties of sects are sprung in England since your strong hand which truly did forbid the liberty of interpreting Scripture is taken from you whereof some be as learned as yourselves witnes the books of the Socinians for 't is an easy matter out of affection to turn Scripture to variety of errors as was cleerly seen in Luther who because Carolostadius had publish't the absence of Christ's Body from the Blessed Sacrament before himself found the middle tenet of compresence of both Body Bread and so by that base affection saved a great part of the world through God's Providence from a wickeder error Thirdly hee tells us that some few Eastern Christians are called Nestorians others suspected of Eutychianism but most wrongfully Though indeed nothing is more right full then to call them so as even Protestants confess But you see nature works in despite of Design and that hee hath a mind to cling in very brotherly and lovingly with the Nestorians Eutychians though hee saies hee will not and those tenets of theirs which in the close of his paragraph hee pretends to detest as accursed errors here hee strokes with a geâ—tle hand assuring us they are nothing but some unvsâ—all expressions as if all heresies when exprest were not expressions and also very unvsuall new to faith the faithfull Now their unvsuall expressions were onely these that Christ had two distinct persons and no distinct natures which are nothing in the Bp ' s mind had they deny'd Christ to be God too it had been also an unvsuall expression but I must confess a very scurry and pestiferous one as were the former But our favourable Bishop thimking it necessary to bolster up his Church with a multitude boldly pronounces what hee knows not in excuse of those Hereticks though it be contrary to the publike and best intelligence wee have from those remote countries Fourthly hee is very piously rhetoricall tells us that the best is they are either wheat or chaff of the Lord's floar bâ—t that our tongues must not winnow them Which is as absurd as the former That it is best for them to be wheat I understand very well but that it should be best as hee says that they are either wheat or chaff I confess I am at a loss to conceive Chaffe Ps 1. v. 5. signifies the vngodly and Mat. 3. v. 12. the very place which his Allegoâ—y relates to it is said that Christ will burn the chaff of his floar in vnquenchable fire which mee thinks is far from best So miserably the Bp. comes of still wâ—ether hee intends to speak finely or solidly Our tongues indeed shall not winnow them as hee says nor do we pretend to do so by our tongues or voluntary talking that were to vsurp the method of discourse proper to himself onely but our reason will winnow them unles wee turn Beasts use it not our proofs if they be evident as
denyed p 159 160 161. 162 163 From Names and Titles denyed p 164 165 166 167 from S. Ambâ—ose 23â— 232. and 234. from S. Chrysost and Theophylact. p 233 from Clemens p. 258. 259. from S Chrysost again p. 274 275 also p 286 287 Three impertinent Testimonies for S. Johns being over the Jews onely p. 366 367 His Testimony from Scripture for his Exclusive Provinces truely explicated and that Explication made good p. 224 225 c. His most serviceable Testimony from the Arch-heretick Pelagius p. 239. This Testimony mainly rely'd on p. 242. 306. 346. 348. Testimony from S. Hierom clearing the point of Exclusive Jurisdiction p. 251. to 255. S. Chrysostomes express Testimony against himself whom he cites most for him in this point p 279. 280. Three most manifest Testimonies from S. Chrysost for S. Peters Supremacy p. 288. to 292. Testimony from S. Cyprian and S. Austinc for S. Peters Authority p. 292. to 297. Testimony from our own Canon Law senselesly brought against us p. 297. to 301. A Testimony expresly against himself 〈◊〉 every Tittle brought to make good all his former Testimonies p. â—26 327. Six Testimonies of 〈◊〉 shown invalid by Schism disarm'd left unmaintained by their Alledger p. 329. 330. Testimonies from Scripture for the promise and performance of a particular degree of Authority in S. Peâ—â—â— urged p. 393. to 400 His own Testimony from S. Hillary expresly against him p. 416 A Testimony produc'd as for him which contradicts him in five particulars p. 418 419. His Testimony from Scripture for twelve Episcopall Chairs p. 421. 423. The Testimony Tu es Petrus c. urged by us p. 434. 435. Testimony from Justinians Novels â—oubly and notoriously falsified p. 468. 469. W. WEaknesse in producing blindly places of Scripture unapplyed to any Circumstance p. 4 5. In imputing Contumeliousness to his Adversary p 6 7 9. Yet using worse himself p. 6. 8 9 10. In expecting that Adversaries in a scrious quarrell should spare one another p. 7. In his manner of writing Epist to the Reader p. 6 17 19 In quoting Saint Hierom against the Disarmer to his own utter overthrow p. 21 22 23 c. In totally mistaking the common sense of a plain Epistle to the Reader p. 29 30. c. In arguing by Ifs p. 77 78. thrice Also p. 138 182 183 356 357 Thirteen weaknesses about one point p. 96 to 106. There are innumerable others but I am weary A List of their common Heads may be seen p. 454 455. The total sum of Dr. Hammond's faults committed in the first Part of his reply that is within the compass of thirty seven leaves favourably reckon'd is this Absurdities threescore and two Abuses twenty nine Blasphemies seven Groundless Cavils fifteen Calumnies twelve Contradictions seventy six False-dealings forty four besides his changing the words and sense of others Ignorances great part of which are affected fifty Omissions of his necessary duty forty Bringing Testimonies for him which are against him one and twenty Mistakes Prevarications Shufflings Weaknesses for the most part voluntary sans nombre INDEX To the Treatise against my Lord of DERRY ABsurdities p. 484 485 491 493 496 498 506 516 521 527 528 529 530 536 537 541 542 574 594 595 603 621 622 629 twice 635 640 641 647 524 570 571. Absurdity in bragging of his Churches large Communion p 641 642 643 Breaking Church-Unity inexcusable p. 569. 570. 571. 662. 663. 664. Cavills groundlesly rais'd p. 483 484 485 499 501 502 524 541 565 572 599 632 935 952 653. Cavills against the Council of Trent answered p. 645 646 647 648 649. Contradictions to himself p. 491 496 twice 500 527 540 twice 554 565 571 576 577. also p. 578 579 four times 590 591 594 601 602 603 604 607 twice 610 twice 611 621 twice 631 632 633 644 653 654 655 656 Other Contradictions p. 497 498 522 527 528 582 583 thrice 587 634 651. Contradicting the whole world's ages p. 530 559 560. Controversy what p. 502. Creed of the Apostles why instituted p. 492. why other Creeds or Professions p. 492 463. Defendent who properly p 511. Falsification of the Council of Ephesus in four respects p. 493 494 495. of his Adversaries words p. 525 526 630 631 of the Council of Sardica p. 537 538 of Bede p 550 of all our Historians at once p. 549. False pretence of our stating the Question p. 499. False stating the question p 500 501. Moderation of Protestants misrepresented from p. 581 to 601. Mistaking wilfully our charge p. 479 480. Omitting to tell us whether his Exceptions were Demonstrative or only probable p 475. Omitting one halfe of our charge p. 477 478. Omitting to speak one positive word to the matter of Fact p. 481 482. Omitting words most reli'd on by his Adversary p 540. Opponent who properly p 511. Prevarication from answering and substituting common words for particular things p. 486 487 488 489 490 599. Other Prevarications p. 497 498 534 twice 569 570 575 632 633 638 twice A most absurd and manifold Prevarication p. 505 506 507 508. Again 509 510. Also 511 512 513 Prevarications from the question p. 553 557 562 563 564 592 600 607 608 612 613 614 615 616 621 622 623 624 625 526 627 635 650 651. Succession into St. Peters Headship due to the Bishop of Rome p. 617 618. Testimony from the Council of Ephesus produced by Lord D. p. 493 569 573 from English Statutes p. 524 from the Epistle of Pope Eleutherius p. 539 540. Testimony from S. Prosper rejected by him p. 540 541. His Testimony from the Welsh Manuscript mâ—nifoldly weak from p. 542 to p. 549. Unity of Faith broak by the Reformers p. 570 571 572 657 658 659. Unity of Government broke by them p. 573 574 575 576 658. 659. Universal Church impossible to be known by Protestant Grounds from p. 595 to p. 599. The total sum of faults committed by my Lord of Derry in his short Appendix cast up amount to Absurdities twenty nine Cavils sixteen Contradictions forty four False dealings twelve Omissions of most important matters which concerned the whole question four Prevarications forty two Corrections of the ERRATA IN the Title l. 2. dispach't Epist to the Reader p. 2. l. 11. this method ib. p. 6. t. 8. oratoriall p. 12. l. ult them being p. 13. l. 17. I doubt not p. 14. l. 32. be otherwise p. 21. l. 15. his award p. 32. l. 1. ruin more p. 53. l. 11. if Christians p. 54. l. 2. of schism p. 54. l. 29. these positions p 59. l. 17 extern p. 95. l. 1. chap. 2. p. 105. l. 20 may not both p. 108. l. 15. lawfull p. 113. l. 22 most probable p. 129. l. 20. have had p. 142. l. 28. this consent p. 146. l. 26 Bishops p. 147. l. 26 quos p. 149. l. 3 reply p. 34. p. 150. l. 26 in it p. 152. l. 17 Bishops p. 154. l. 20 epist 10 p. 172. l. 7 Province ib. l. 25 fifth p. 173. l. 1 fifth p. 177. l. 11 his side p. 187. 18. the word is p. 195. l. 30 prepositive p. 216. l. 29 offer here p. 22 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. l. 17. p. 222. l. 22 a pact ib. l. 28 a pact p. 241. l. 7 our Doctors p. 252. l. 18 gentilem p. 236â— l. 7 il phras'd p. 257. l. 13 hath no. p. 261. lâ— 20 same tune p. 266. l. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 301. l. 7 prejudiciall p. 306. l. 34 possibly p. 308. 13 from all otheâ— ib. 33. hence all p. 310. l. 34 commanded togather together p. 318. l. 20 take to be p. 322. l. 13 in soft-reason'd ib. l. 17 attending p. 346. l. 19 which he affirms p. 347. l. 12 vers 1. we ib. l. 15 Greeks p. 350. l. 16 argumentative ib. l. 31 fourth p. 353. l. 8 â—ad won p. 359. l. 28 here Answer p. 53. â— 361. l. 2 to him Answ p. 49. l. 32. 33. p. 365. l. 1 repugnancies p. 378. â—28 of asks p. 381. l. 23 24 assents not sprung p. 382. l. 31 it would p. 391. l. 13 inclosure p. 393. l. 9. found p. 87. â— 406 l. 17 rule p. 407 l. 1. par 10. Answ p. 63. ib. l. 11 exhortation p. 408. l. 12. preferment Rep. p. 68. Reply p. 412. l. 13. as our Saviour did ib. l. 31. expression p. 420. l. 15. hands reaping â— 424. l. 20. 〈◊〉 your p. 443. l. 33. destroy ours from his own p. 448. l. 27. proportion p. 450. l. 10. explicated ib. l. 28. us three p. 459. l. 2. ingenuous p. 462. l. 2. grant p. 469. l. 8. his former fault p. 480. 4. 5. the Bishops fâ—llow-sencer Dr. H. of Schism cap. 7. par 2. confess c. p. 484. l. 8. Sons by attestation p. 486. l. 5. none can be p. 490. l. 11. than that the ibid. l. 33. immediate p. 496. l. 33. some such things p. 498. l. 23. all the Grounds p. 500. l. 3. Church or Successour of S. Peter p 502. l. 8. These points p. 506. l. 1. and indeed p. 507. l. 3. manifest in p. 511. l. 6. doth aloud p. 511. l. 17. Opponent or Accaser p. 512. l. ult have afforded some p. 513. l. 7. his Church since if he means the discipline of the Church of England c. p. 514. l. 11â— flickering p. 519. l. 24. by my first p. 520. l. 27. of non-ens p. 533. l. 26. utter unauthentickness p. 542. l. 34. the concomitant 549. l. 2. are put down p. 550. l. 32. corroborate the. p. 554. l. 21. Levi. p. 557. l. 25. now hold p. 568. l. 11 by any tie p. 577. l. 11. confâ—sses p. 21. l. 7. 8. Pag. 578 l. 33. nationall Laws p. 591. l. 28. that no Society p. 595. l. 3. have it hâ—ld p. 600. l. 30. and no more p. 603. l. 1. any 〈◊〉 ib. l. 4. â—ontests p. 604. l. 17. no my Lord. p. 605. l. 12. renouncing p. 609. l. 2. These Evidencies p. 612. l. 7. in noting p. 613. l. 22. evince p. 617. l. 26. 27. applying the. p. 620. l. 16. unites God's p. 634. l. 10. as suchâ— p. 638. l. 20. discourse dull p. 642. l. 21. but there is p. 644. l. 8. dâ—ametricall p. 645. l. 27. or of the p. 651. l. 4. A Patriarchall Aâ—istocraticall Authority p. 666. l. 19. neither their FINIS
England flies off presently and denies it saying he had no title to such an Authority there whereas when we maintain his possession we pretend not yet a Right which is our inference thence but that actually England was under such an Authority and acknowledg'd it whether it were rightly pretended or injustly remains to be inferred which the Dr. mistaking and not distinguishing between possession and right sayes we beg the question when we onely take what is evident that he was in possession and thence infer a right until the contrary be proved The second Ground is that This Authority actually over England and acknowledged there was acknowledged likewise to be that of the Head of the Vniversal Church and not of a Patriarchate onely This Ground is no less evident than the former by our adversaries confession since this is the Authority they impugn as unlawfull and from which they reformed which last word implies the actual acknowledgment that Authority had before Hence Mr. H's digression to show that Kings could erect and translate Patriarchates was perfectly frivolous as far as concerns this purpose for whether they can change Patriarchates or no is impertinent when we are questioning an Authority above Patriarchs and pretended to be constituted by Christ himself The third Ground is that This Papal Authority actually over the Ecclesiastical affaires in England was held then as of Christ's Institution and to have been derived to the Pope as he was Successour to S. Peter The truth of this appears by the known confession of the then Roman Church and the self-same Controversy perpetually continued till this day The fourth Ground is that This actual power the Pope then had in England had been of long continuance and settled in an ancient Possession This is evinced both from our Adversaries grant the evidence of the fact it self and even by the carriage of S. Aust in the Monk and the Abbot of Bangor exprest in that counterfeited testimony alledged by Dr. H. whence we see it was the doctrine S. Austin taught the Saxons The fifth Ground shall be that No Possession ought to be disturbed without sufficient motives and reasons and consequently it self is a title till those reasons invalidate it and show it null This is evident first by Nature's Principles which tell us there is no new cause requisite for things to remain as they are wheras on the other side nothing can be changed without some cause actually working and of force proportionable to the weight and settledness of the thing to be moved Secondly by Morals which teach us that mans understanding cannot be changed from any opinion or beleef without motives ought not without sufficient ones and consequently needs no new motive to continue it in any former assent besides the foregoing Causes which put it there Thirdly we find that Politicks give testimony to or rather stand upon this Ground assuring us when any Government is quietly settled it ought so to stand till sufficient motives and reasons in Policy that is a greater common good urge a change And if Possession were held no title then the Welshmen might still pretend to command England and each line or race which preceded and was outed quarrel with any subsequent one though never so long settled and so no certain right at all would be found of any possession in the World till we come to Adam's time Fourthly as for the particular Laws of our Countrey they clearly agree in the same favour for Possession I shall onely instance in one common case If I convey Blackâ—cre to I. S. for the life of I. N. and after wards I. S. dy in this case because I cannot enter against mine own Grant and all the world else have equal title whoever first enters into the land is adjudged the true and rightfull Owner of it during the life of I. N. and that by the sole title of Occupancy as they call it which they wholly ground upon this known reason that in equality of pretensions Possession still casts the ballance Nay such regards is given by our Law to Possession that were the right of a former Title never so evident yet a certain time of peaceable Possession undisturb'd by the contrary claim would absolutely bar it And here I should take my self obliged to ask my Adversary's pardon for using such words as a Dr. of Divinity is not presumed to be acquainted with did not his own Example at least excuse if not provoke my imitation Thus much of the force of Possession in general without descending to the nature of ours in particular that is of such a Possession as is justly presumable to have come from Christ Hence followes that since Possession of Authority must stand till sufficient Reasons be alledged that it was unjust those Motives and Reasons ought to be weighed whether they be sufficient or no ere the Authority can be rejected wherefore since the relinquishing any Authority actually in power before makes a material breach from that Government the deciding the question onely stands in examining those Reasons which oppose its lawfulness since the sufficiency of them cleares the breakers the insufficiency condemns them and in our case makes the material Schism formal Let the Reader then judge how little advised Dr. H. was in stating the question rightly and clearly of Schism pag 10. where he tells us that the motives are not worth he eding in this controversy but onely the truth of the matter of fact For the matter of fact to wit that there was then an actual Government and that they broke from it being evident to all the world and confest by themselves if there be no reasons to be examined he is convinced by his own words to be a Schismatick so flatly and palpably that it is left impossible for him even to pretend a defence The sixth Ground shall be that Such a Possession as that of the Pope's Authority in England was held ought not to be changed or rejected upon any lesser motives or reasons than rigorous and most manifest Evidence that it was usurp't The reasons for this are fetch 't by parity from that which went before onely the proportions added For in moving a Body in nature the force of the cause must be proportion'd to the gravity settledness and other extrinsecal impediments of the Body to be moved otherwise nothing is done In morals the motives of dissent ought to be more powerfull than those for the former continuance in assent otherwise a soul as a soul thas is as rational is not or ought not to be moved and so in the rest Now that nothing less than Evidence rigorously and perfectly such can justify a rejecting of that Authority is thus show'd That Authority was held as of Faith and to have been constituted by Christ's own mouth it had been acknowledgedly accounted for such by multitudes of pious learned men for many ages before in all Christian Countries of the Communion of the Roman Church
whence to alledge those testimonies comparable to that of the Church they left since they can never even pretend to show any company of men so incomparably numerous so unquestionably learned holding certainly as of Faith and as received from the Apostles that Government which they impugned and this so constantly for so many hundred years so unanimously and universally in so many Countries where knowledge most flourish't testifying the same also in their General Councels all which by their own aknowlegedment was found in the Church they left The eihtgh Ground is that The proofs alledged by Protestants against us bear not even the weight of a probability to any prudent man who penetrates and considers the contrary motives For the proofs they alledge are testimonies that is words capable of divers senses as they shall be diversely play'd upon by wits Scholars and Criticks and it is by experience found that generally speaking their party and ours give severall meanings to all the Testimonies controverted between us Now it is manifest that computing the vastnefs of the times and places in which our Profession hath born sway we have had near a thousand Doctors for one of the Protestants who though they ever highly venerated and were well versed in all the Ancient Fathers and Councells yet exprest no difficulty in those proofs but on the contrary made certain account that all Antiquity was for them Thus much for their knowledge Neither ought their sincerity run in a less proportion than their number unless the contrary could be evidently manifested which I hear not to be pretended since they are held by our very Adversaries and their acts declare them to have been pious in other respects and on the other side considering the corruptness of our nature the prejudice ought rather to stand on the part of the disobeyers than of the obeyers of any Government Since then no great difficulty can be made but that we have had a thousand knowing men for one and no certainty manifested nor possible to be manifested that they were unconscientious we have had in all morall estimation a thousand to one in the meanes of understanding aright these testimonial proofs and then I take not that to have any morall probability which hath a thousand to one against it But I stand not much upon this having a far better game to play I mean the force of Tradition which is fortify'd which such and so many invincible reasons that to lay them out at large and as they deserve were to transcribe the Dialogues of Rusworth the rich Storehouse of them to them I refer the Reader for as ample as satisfaction as even Scepticism can desire and onely make use at present of this Consideration that if it be impossible that all the now-Fathers of Families in the Catholick Church disperst in so many nations should conspire to tell this palpablely to their Children that twenty yeares agoe such a thing visible and practical as all points of Faith are was held in that Church if no such thing had been and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty yeares upwards till the Apostles by the same reason by which it holds in the last twenty then it followes evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty yeares agoe was held ever in case the Church held nothing but upon this Ground that so she received or had been taught by the immediately-foregoing Faithfull for as long as she pretends onely to this Ground the difficulty is equal in each twenty yeares that is there is an equal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie Now that they ever held to this Ground that is to the having received it from their Ancestours is manifested by as great an Evidence For since they now hold this Ground if at any time they had taken it up they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestours or no. The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility or rather greater that they should conspire to tell a lie in the onely Ground of their Faith and yet hold as they did their Faith built upon that Ground to be truth the latter position must discredit it self in the very termes which imply a perfect contradiction for it is as much as to say nothing is to be held as certainty of Faith but what hath descended to us from our Forefathers and yet the onely Rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of Faith is newly invented Wherefore unless this chain of Tradition be shown to have been weak in some link or other the case between us is this whether twenty testimonies liable to many exceptions and testify'd by experience to be disputable between us can bear the force even of a probability against the universal acknowledgment and testification of millions and millions in any one age in a thing visible and practical To omit that we are far from being destitute of testimonies to counterpoise nay incomparably over poise theirs By this Ground and the reason for it the Reader may judge what weak and trivial proofs the best of Protestant Authours are able to produce against the clear Verdict of Tradition asserted to be infallible by the strongest supports of Authority and reason To stop the way against the voluntary mistakes of mine Adversary I declare my self to speak here not of written Tradition to be sought for in the Scriptures and Fathers which lies open to so many Cavils and exceptions but of oral Tradition which supposing the motives with which it was founded and the charge with which it was recommended by the Apostles carries in it's own force as apply'd to the nature of mankind an infallible certainty of it's lineal and never-to-be-interrupted perpetuity as Rushworth's Dialogues clearly demonstrate Sect. 6. The Continuation of the same Grounds THe ninth Ground is that The Catholick Church and her Champions ought in reason to stand upon Possession This is already manifested from the fifth Ground since Possession is of it's self a title till sufficient motives be produced to evidence it an usurpation as hath there been shown By this appears the injustice of the Protestants who would have it thought reasonable that we should seem to quit our best tenour Possession attested by Tradition and fall upon the troublesome and laborious method of citing Authours in which they will accept of none but whom they list and after all our pains and quotations directly refuse to stand to their judgment as may be seen in the Protestant's Apology in which by the Protestant's own confessions the Fathers held those opinions which they object to us for errours The tenth Ground is that In our Controversies about Religion reason requires that we should sustain the part of the Defendant they of the Opponent This is already sufficiently proved since we ought to stand upon the title of Possession as a Ground beyond all arguments untill it be convinced to be malae fidei which is
is that Historical proofs which manifest onely Fact do not necessarily conclude a Rigâ—t This is evident First because testimonies conclude no more than then express but they express onely the Fact therefore they conclude onely that the Fact was such a person 's not that the Right was his Secondly because no matter of Fact which concerns the execution of any business is such but it may be performed by another who hath no proper Rigth but borrows it from the delegation of some other to whom it properly belongs as we see in Vice-Roys Thirdly because in a process of fifteen or sixteen hundred years it cannot be imagin'd but there should happen some matters of Fact either out of ambition inter est ignorance or tyranny against the most inviolable Right in the world nay even sometimes out of too much zeal and piety great men if they have not discretion proportionable will be medling with things which do not concern them as we see by daily experience Now a testimony of a matter of Fact can never conclude any thing unless it be first manifested that that Act our when he proceeded to action was bassed with none of these but governed himself by pure Reason that is unless it be manifested that he had Right and if testimonies can be produced expressing that he had Right it was needless to stand alledging those which express't onely Fact Frivolous therefore it is to bring historical proofs of Fact upon the stage in a dispute about Right since taken alone they make onely a dumb show and can act no part in that Controversy for the very alledging that some of these faults might intervene disables such premises from inferring a Right Neither ought Mr. H. which I suppose for want of Logick or forgetfulness how men use to dispute he is ever apt to do exact of the Defendant a reason of his denial in particular but it is his part to prove that none of these defects could happen otherwise his Premisses of Fact hang together with his Conclusion of Right by no necessity of consequence Let the Reader then take notice by this plain information of reason how senselesly Dr. H. behaved himself in the business of erecting and translating Patriarchates and in many other places where from some particular matters of Fact he would needs conclude a Right The twelfth Ground is that The acceptation of the secular powers and their command to the people are necessary to the due and fitting execution of the Churches Lawes whence follows not that the Princes made those Lawes by their own Authority but that they obey'd and executed what the Church had order'd For unless the Churche's Ordinances should be put into temporal laws which oblige to their observance by aw and fear of punishment they could hardly ever find an universal reception since otherwise refractory and turbulent Spirits who cared not much for their obligation in confcience might at pleasure reject disobey and reclame against them which would both injure the Authority of the Church and scandalize the community of the Faithfull This therefore being of such an absolute conveniency for the Church we need not wonder that the temporal power of Christians should put the Churche's orders into temporal Laws and execute their performance nor consequently can testimonies of such execution and laws prejudice the Pope ' s Right since Catholick Governours do the self same at present as far as concerns this point which was done then The thirteenth Ground is that It is granted by Catholicks that Kings may exercise some Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction by the concession of the Church and yet not prejudice thereby the Pope's Vniversal Pastourship This is most visible from the unanimous acknowledgment of all Catholick Authours and verifyed by divers practical instances Hence it is evident that Dr. H. must either manifest likewise that the lawfulness of those matters of Fact related of Kings was not originiz'd from the Churche's precedent orders or else he concludes nothing at all against us Here I desire the Reader Mr. H. may joyntly take notice that the testimonies himself alledges from the Church in her Councils granting this to the Secular power is a strong prejudice against their self-and-proper Right as also that he hath not so much as attempted to produce one Testimony of any Authority expressing it to be the Right of the secular Magistrate independent of the Church The fourteenth and last Ground is that In case Scbism should invade a whole Country it could not be expected to have happen'd otherwise than D H. of Schism c. hath described For it is to be expected that the secular power should be for it and so use meanes to make the Clergy Vniversities assent to his novelty otherwise had either the Temporal Government awed them the Pastours of souls consented to inform the people right or the Vniversities the Seminaries of learning conspired to write against that innovation in all likehood it would have given a stop to it's proceding at least have hindred it's universal invasion Hence follows that Dr. H's narrative discourse of his Schism hath nothing in it to bewonder us but rather that it is as plain and particular a confession of the Fact as any penitent malefactour could make when he is about to suffer For that a Nation may fall into Schism none doubts as little that it should fall into it by those very means and the same degrees which he there layes down Nay more himself disgraces his own Narration by confessing p. 136. that the Clergy were inclined to subscribe by the feare of a premunire and the question about the Pope's Right in England being debated in the Vniversities he sayes onely p. 135. that it was generally defined in the negative that is when the King's party prevailed yet he omits that the Kings lust first moved him to think of Schismatizing and his final repentance of that Act which show that the first spring which mov'd the whole Engine was not purity of conscience but the impurest and basest of passions The positions which I have layed dow for Grounds to our future discourse will of themselves lay open the whole case clearly to the ordinary Readers and inform the more prudent ones that nothing is or can be sayd by Dr H. of a force and clearness comparable to that of our Possession and that of oral Tradition which we ever â—laim'd for our Tenour from which also they disclaimed when they reform'd in this point of the Pope's Supremacy So that litle more remains to be perform'd but to manifest his shallow weaknesses and trivial impertinences which I should willingly omit if the greatest part of Readers would be as willing to think a book fully answer'd when substantial points are shown to be nothing as they are to catch at the shadow of words as matters of importance and so imagine nothing done till they also be reply'd upon Nor do I fear this task though ingratefull in it's self and less
necessary will be voyd of fruit specially to Mr. H's Friends who may see by this Answer of mine how bad that cause must be which can cast so understanding a man as some of them imagine him upon such non sense weaknesses of reasoning voluntary mistakes falsifications denying his own words and many other ridiculous shifts as shall be seen most amply in the process of this Treatise Sect. 7. Dr. H's accurate mistake of every line of the Introduction to Schism Disarm'd and his wilful avoyding to answer the true import of it Mr. H's reason which was gravelled in understanding the plain words in my Epistle to the Reader as hath been shown has no better fortune in confuting my Introduction I exprest in the beginning of it that It bred in me at first some admiration why the Protestants should now print books by pairs to defend themselves from Schism who heretofore more willingly skirmish't in particular Controversies than bid battel to the main Body of the Church c. Vpon which Dr. H. not aware that upon every new occurrence or effect the admirative faculty first playes it's parts and stirres up the reason to disquisitiveness for the cause of it such reflections ly much out of the way of one who gleans testimonies will not give me leave something to admire at first till I had found the reason at an occurrence evidently new that is their writing at this time books by pairs to clear them selves from Schism but is pleased to turn my ordinary easy moderate words of some admiration at first into those loud phrase p. 12. l. 19. of great vnheard of news and prodigy putting news and prodigy in different letters that himself might be thought an Oedipus who had unriddled my imagin'd aenigma But since any thing which is uncouth and disorderly justly stirres up admiration what necessity is there that Dr. H. and his Friends should hap to do all things so orderly wisely and reasonably that poore S. W. whom he confesses here p. 10. l. 36 not to have been of his Councel in his designment might not be allow'd to have some admiration at first at their mysterious imprudence But he will needs undertake to allay my admiration though I was much better satisfy'd with my own reason there given by telling me it was seasonable charity to undeceive weak seducible Christians because the Romish Missaries by pretence of their Schism endeavour'd to defame them out of a persecuted profession Where first I assure him that many of those who have of late become Catholicks are as great Scholars and wits as have been left behind and so more likely to have been reduced by reason than seduced by the industry of others working upon their weakness the weak seducihle Souls of the former Protestants are either turn'd Quakers or such like kind of things those who have run back to the lap of their Mother the Holy Catholick Church are such as are neither easily deceivable by our Missaries nor possibly undeceivable by Dr. H. multitudes of them being such as might wiâ—h far better reason be wish't to have the Answering of Dr. H. in my stead than be feared to be mo'vd by his reasons to renounce their own Nor needed they be tempted by others their own reason if disinteressed could not but inform them that that Religion was not true that Church but counterfeit whose grounds were rotten and whose Fates depended upon the Temporal Power Nor hath the other part of that poor sentence scap't better from his artificial mistakes I onely affirmed that they heretofore seem'd more willing to skirmish in particular controversies than bid battel to tâ—e main body of the Church which he misunderstands as if I had said that no Protestants ever writ against the Authority of our Church and then impugnes his own mistake father'd upon S. W. very strongly by nominating some few books upon that subject Ans p. 11. l. 2. pittying himself that he should 〈◊〉 set to prove what none said but himself and truly I pitty him too But are not there near an hundred times that number who have skirmish't against us in particular Controversies I hope then this will serve to justify those moderate words of mine that they seem'd more willing to that task Yet he triumphs over me saying that it is much juster matter of wonder to him that S. W. should set out so unauspiciously as to begin with an observation founded in a visible contrariety to a plain matter of Fact that every man that thinks of must discern to be so Thus doth he trample down and then strut over S. W. at the first onset so potent still and victorious is he when he fights against his own Chimaera's I am persuaded a little sooth-saying will serve the Reader to determine who began the more inauspiciously and at whose door the sinister bird croak't Yet though saith he those words had been true that formerly the Protestants were more willing to skirmish in paâ—â—icular Controversies yet Dr. H. tells us it were obvious to every man what might now suggest the change of that course and what obvious reason might this be but that after particular Controversies were competently debated to set the Axe to the root of the tree and stock up Rome's universal Pastourship and infallibility Where he sees not that the question remains still to be ask't why the competent debating of particular Controversies should just then end and the propter time then begin for the Protestants to stock up Rome when themselves had never a legg left them to stand on and why they should hope then rather to get the upper hand when they ly flat along themselves as if Antaeus-like they were stronger by falling Again had many been induced by reason to return to the Catholick Church yet I cannot understang why the Protestants zeal should think it more seasonable to write Books by pairs against us than against their other Desertours since they who have gone from them into other Sects are above an hundred for one in comparison of the Catholik Converts so that had not S. W. found out a reason to rid himself of his some admiration he might still have remain'd in it for any thing M. H. hath produc't Vpon occasion of my saying that it was more seasonable to denounce to those Sects the unreasonableness of their Schism than plead the reasonableness of their own he voluntarily mistakes my words as if I meant that he had confess 't it Schism and then gone about to plead the reasonableness of it whereas I onely intended as is evident that he went about to plead the reasonableness of that which I who am the Defendant doe and must hold for Schism and consequently may nominate it so that is of his breaking from our Churche's Government Yet for this I have lost my credit this being another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he tells the Reader if he can understand Greek what trust is due to S. W. in his affirmations Should he
make use of the same method and every time I name them Schismaticks or their sect Schism feign that I say they call themselves so he might by this art make S. W. a monstrous lyer if the Reader were so monstrously silly as to believe him In the next place I must needs Answ p. 13. misunderstand the nature and ayme of the Churche's censures because I tell them They should rather threaten their Desertours with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication than cry so loud Not guilty when the lash hath been so long upon their own shoulders since he sayes a Schism arm'd with migâ—t is not either in prudence or charity to be contended with Whereas I pretend not that they ought to execute the punishments subsequent to Excommunication but to separate themselves had they any Grounds to make it good that they were God's Church from Schismaticks and avoid their Communion in Etern actions belonging to God's worship as God's Church ever accustomed not â—caring to denounce and preach to them in plain terms that they are Schismaticks and cut off from the Church Neither is this against Charity since Schism being such an hainous and damnable sin Charity avouches nay makes it an obligation to manifest Schismaticks to be such that they who have faln may apprehend the sâ—d state they are in and thence take occasion to arise and they who stand may beware of falling into that dangerous gulf which once open'd the earth to swallow Core Dathan and Abiron Nor is it against prudence since every one knows the permitting the weaker sort to communâ—cate with enemies in those very circumstances which may endanger them is the onely way to ruine any Government either Spiritual or Temporal At least why should they not dare had they Grounds to bear them out to do the same as the Catholicks did during the time of their greatest persecution under the Protestant Government that is let them be known to be Schismaticks and make the people abstain in divine matters from their contagious Communion But the confest uncertainty of their Faith makes them squeamish to assume to themselves any such Authority and therefore they are forced by their very Grounds when their Secular Power is gone to turn discipline into courtesy in matters of Government as they do in controversy turn zeal into civility and complement When he talks here piously of the Romanists sanguin try method sure he hath forgotten that ever Priests were hang'd drawn and quarter'd for their Faith at Tiburn and all over England in the time of their cruel Reign or if he remembers it he thinks to make us amends by preaching like a Saint of their meekness of edification and the more tragically-pittifull expressions of lamenting the ruptures of the Christian world which themselves have made with rivers of teares of bloud Answ p. 13. The next Section begins with the rehearsal of my reason why no colourable pretence can be alledged by the Protestants why they left us but the same will hold as firm for the other Sects why they left them which I exprest thus For that we prest them to believe false fundamentals Dr. H. and his Friends will not say since they acknowledge ours a true Church which is inconsistent with such a lapse They were therefore in their opinion things tolerable which were urged upon them and if not in the same rank yet more deserving the Church should command their observance than Copes or Surplices or the book of Common Prayer the allowance whereof they prest upon their Quondam brethen Which words though as moderately and modestly expressing the matter as could be invented yet the Reader shall see what a character the Doctors peevish zeal hath set upon them to wit that Answ p. 14. there are in them too many variations from the Rules of sober discourse so many indications of S. W. his temper that it will not be easy to enumerate them It shall be seen presently whether the Doctors Discourse or mine went a rambling when we writ The tenour of my Argument ad hominem was this The falsities which you pretend we prest upon you were either acknowledged by you to have been fundamental or not-fundamental that is tolerable that you acknowledg'd them fundamental you will not say since falsity in a fundamental ruines the essence of a Church which yet you grant ours to have therefore they were according to you not-fundamental or tolerable yet such kind of not-fundamental points as were more importing to be prest upon you by us than Copes or Surplices which you prest upon them therefore you can alledge no reason why you left us but they may alledge the same or a greater why they left you This evidently is the sense of my words to any man who can understand common reason and the answer to them ought to be a manifesting-some solid motive why they left us which the other Sects cannot with better right defend themselves with why they left the Protestants Let us hear now whether the Doctors discoursive power were sober when he reel'd into such an answer First he willfully puts a wrong meaning upon those words false Fundamentals as if by them I meant things which we onely not they hold for Fundamentals and then overthrows me most powerfully by showing as he easily might that he and his Friends say not but that we prest them to believe false Fundamentals in this sense that is such things as we held Fundamentals whereas 't is plain by my arguing ad hominem all the way as also by those words they will not say they acknowledge ours a true Church in their opinion c. that I meant such points as they accounted Fundamentals And when he hath thus voluntarily mistaken me he tailes against me that I affirm things without the least shadow and ground of truth and that I play foul play The Reader will quickly discern how meanly Dr. H. is skill'd in the game of reason though in that of citations where he can both shuffle and cut that is both alledge and explicate them with Id ests as he pleases he can pack the cards handsomly and show more crafty tricks than ever did Hocus Pocus And if any after all this can think I have wrong'd Mr. H. in affirming he is a weak reasoner himself shall ber ample testimony to this truth in the following Paragraph He slily touches at my true meaning of Fundamentals there and tells us that false Fundamentals is a contradiction in adjecto Grant it who ever affirmed that Fundamentals could be false my words were onely that Dr. H. and his Friends would not say that our Church prest them to believe false Fundamentals Is it any wrong to them or foule play in S. W. to affirm that Dr. H. and his Friends will not speak a contradiction Himself such is his humility sayes it is affirming here that when S. W. undertakes for him and his Friends that they will not say that the Romanists have prest them to
it is doubtfull whether some few injuries may not be sufficient for that end and then if the some of these last words doe not mitigate the absolute nulla potest there can be none I confess I have lost my reason To omit that the sense of his translation or paraphrase few or none c. leaves room for the reasonableness of Schism since it admits a possibility for Schism in case of some injury received to be excusable In a word I onely affirmed Schism Disarm'd p. 3. that he seem'd something chary in those expressions which I am sure the Reader will think I have made good himself acknowledging here p. 24. l. 11. that his expression was cautious and the fact of mincing the words being evident As for his intention if the Reader wil believe him he assures him Answ p. 18. it was out of tenderness to us so that we must bear the blame of his feeble paraphrase and be beholding to him to boot Timeo Danaos dona ferentes Howsoever since it was our fortune to have the intention of a courtesy thrust upon us we thank him for it but request him to do us no more such favours for the future as to mince the Fathers words for our sakes they will earn a return of greater gratitude from his own cause which stands in need of such kindnesses My third whisper as he calls it which he will needs have speak aloud to his discredit is that he render'd S. Austin's words à communione orbis terrarum from the Vniversal or truly Catholick Church of Christ as if he were afraid lest God's Church might perhaps be thought untruly Catholick Of which he sayes the reasons is visible because the Church of Rome is by her Advocates styled the Catholick Church But do not others call her so besides her own Advocates do not even our very enemyes forced thereunto by custome which makes words proper give us that appellation unless design cross their free and natural expression Ask in London where a Catholick lives and see whether they will show you the house of a Roman Catholick or no. Should a Pursuivant meet Dr. H. and ask him if he were a Catholick I doubt not but his answer would be negative unless design against us made him deliver himself otherwise Since then we onely have nomen Catholicum obtentum possessum which S. Austin contra Epist. Fund cap. 4. holds to be a note of the Church it is a wrong to that holy Doctor to put upon him in your translation the unnecessary addition of truly to Catholick seing that according to him no Church can be universally called such which is not truly such The summe then of Dr. H's supererogating truly is that though all the world in their free expressions call us onely Catholicks that is sons of the Catholick Church yet all speak untruly but himself and a few of his brethren who also speak truly onely then when it is their turn to dispute against us Yet he tells us if we will believe him that certainly our Church is not such in the notion S. Austin speaks though if we should ask him what ground he hath for his certainty he must answer that he hath none that is certain but onely a probability for I conceive he hath no better ground for that than he hath for his Faith Thus Dr. H. ends his defence from my three Whispers as he calls them though I hope by this time they speak loud and plain enough to every Reader that he was too chary in his expressions which was all I objected In the close he pleases to honour me by making me Confessour of his secretest and deepest reservation but truly though I pretend not to so high an office unless he comes with hearty sorrow for these faults without cloaking them and gives me good hopes of his future amendment he is never likely to obtain absolution The Catholick Gentleman noted by the way that Dr. H. slightly past over the distinction between Heresy and Schism which was necessary to be exprest in that place where the matter of the futurework was to be determined that is what Schism he was chiefly to treat of Now in this Book entitled their defence he ought to state the matter so as to treat of that chiefly which is chiefly objected wherefore since he cannot but know that a Schism coming from an Heresy is that which is more charged upon them both as greater crime and as the cause and origin of the other Schism of onely disobedience he ought to have premised this and let his Reader have known that all Heresy is Schism at least in a place where he purposely treats of the notion of Schism it was fitting to treat it abstractedly from the heretical one and that of bare disobedience both which are objected though the former much more and not speak of it as distinguish 't from heresy as professedly here he does of Schism chap. 2. par 1. so laying wrong grounds to his future discourse by omitting and excluding from it the principal Schism objected and so treating Schism maimedly or rather onely one branch of it Now his first excuse why he past it over so slâ—ghtly onely naming the word distinguish't yet treating no distinction there is that he meddled not with it at all Reply p. 8. l. â—0 as if this made not the fault greater not to meddle with that which was in a manner soley important in that place and most pertinent to his ensuing Tâ—eatise His next is that his method led him to it to treat of it Chap. 8. whereat 'ts evidently most impertinent and unmethodical to treat of Schism against Faith under the head of Schism against mutual Charity and besides method gives that we must put the definitions before we treat of the particularities I am sorry to see that his confusion for method's sake the non-sense of his first book is entail'd upon these also and that that Dish in the Stationers bill of fare must be cook't up again here by Mr. H. to give the Reader a second surfeit Sect. 9. How Dr. H. defends his famous Criticism about the Hith pael-like verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with ten several mistakes of his Accidence HIs second Section presents us with the first Dish in the Stationer's bill of fare served up to the table cover'd but with so many pittiful evasions and mistakes as may serve perhaps to give the Reader a banquet of mirth But I shall treat it seriously His first mistake is general and slips over the whole question Our controversy is whether either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have a reciprocal signification upon a Grammatical account from the notation of the form and termination of the word as he declares himsel of Shism p. 13. to mean of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at least now he to evade quite forsakes his formely-declared intent and recurres for his refuge to the sense of the word taken from
he very putting the Errour on the Churche's side takes away all obligation to believe her and by consequence justifyes all erroneous consciences Thus is the Wind-mill finish't at Dr. H's proper cost and charges although he sayes he contributed not the least stone or timber so truly liberal noble he is that after such profuseness he will not own nor acknowledge his bounty to his very Adversaries Next to these faults which Dr. H. hath committed in pleading for a weak conscience follows his sin of omission I mean his neglect to answer my seventeenth eighteenth pages which obliged him to speak out and say either I or no to two points which are horrible Bull-beggers to him wheresoever he meets them The first is whether all assent of the Vnderstanding which comes not from perfect and demonstrative Evidence springs not from passion and vice The second whether he and his Friends have such Evidence that our Church erred in delivering as of Faith that the Pope as Successour of S. Peter was Head of the Church These two points I made account were the two main hinges on which that door turns which must shut them out of or keep them in the Church and therefore expected not that he should produce his Evidence here but that he should have given some answer either affirmative or negative to them But Grounds are very perillous edged tooles to meddle with and cut the throat of errour at one slash which costs much hacking and hewing when a Controversy is managed by debating particularities Again the nature of Grounds is to entrench so near upon the first principles and their termes are for the most part so unquestionably evident that they leave no elbow-room for a shuffler to bestir his mock-reason in which in particulars not so capable of scientifical proofs especially in testimony-skirmishe seldom or never want And therefore Dr. H. who is of that Generation of Controvertists and very prudent in it dit wisely omit to meddle with these points though in that place he had ample occasion to treat of them But to proceed Mr. Knot had affirm'd that we may forsake the Churche's Communion in case she be fallible and subject to errour Dr. H. inferred hence of Schism p. 20. that it was lawfull if this were true to forsake Communion of all but Angels and Saints and God in heaven his reason was because onely they were infallible and impeccable To maintain the infallible certainty of Faith against this man who would bring all to probability I gave some instances to let him understand that Infallibility in men on earth was not so impossible a matter as he fancies Glancing also at his addition of Impeccable since the controversy there being about our tenet which is Infallibility the mingling it with Impeccability was a tacite calumny intimating to the weaker Readers that this was also out tenet or part of it To these Dr H. pretends an answer but so full of contradictions both to himself and common sense that it would be tedious to enumerate them It were not amiss first to put down our plain tenet which as far as it concerns this present controversy is this That since it is unworthy the Wisdom and Goodness of Almighty God who sent his Son to save mankind not to first lay and then leave efficacious means for that end which means considering the nature of mankind to which they were to be apply'd are no other than efficacious motives efficacioully proposed to make him forsake temporary and fleeting Goods and embrace Intellectual Eternal ones his onely Felicity with which the affections to the former are inconsistent again since these motives cannot be efficaciously proposed to the Vniversality of mankind unless Faith the doctrine of them be certain hence to ascertain Faith Christ gave testimony to his doctrine by doing such prodigious miracles as no man did before and when he left us unless he had left also some means to propose certainly those motives to future mankind his coming had been in a manner voyd for asmuch as concern'd posterity and the rational and convincing certainty of his doctrine and by consequence the efficacy of it had been terminated in those few which himself by his preaching and miracles converted Hence it was necessary the Apostles should also ascertain his and their doctrine by the extraordinary testification of miracles The multitudes of believers encreasing the ordinary and common working of miracles began to cease and controversies beginning to rise between those who pretended to the Law of Christ the consent of Christians in all Nations was now sufficient to convince that that was Christ's doctrine and true which the Apostles Successours told them they had received from the Apostles themselves For it was not possible so many dispers't in several Nations should conspire to a palpablely in a visible practicall and known thing cōcerning their eternal Interest They had nothing else now to doe but to attest what they had received Christ being unanimously acknowledg'd a perfect Law giver there needed no new revelations to patch and mend his noway-defective doctrine The Company of Believers multiplying daily and spreading this attestation encreased still and grew incomparable stronger and the impossibility of either voluntarily lying or involuntarily mistaking became every day greater and greater In this universal delivery from hand to hand called Tradition or to avoid equivocation Oral Tradition we place the impossibility of the Churche's conspiring to erre in attesting things most palpable and most important which we call her Infallibility Vpon this we receive God's written word hence we hold our Faith infallibly-certain that is so true as it cannot but be true as far as concerns that Christ his Apostles taught such doctrine hence lastly to come nearer home we hold for certain and of Faith that S. Peter is Chief of the Apostles and the Pope his Successour and that the renouncers of his Authority are Hereticks and Schismaticks since this sole-certain Rule of all Faith Oral Tradition now shown to be infallible recommended it to us as delivered from immediate Fore-fathers as from theirs and so upwards time out of mind which Rule the first Reformers in this point most manifestly renounced when they renounced that Authority For they could not have been the first Reformers had they found it delivered by Oral Tradition By this is shown first in what we place the Infallibility of the Church not in the bare words of a few particular men but in the manifest and ample attestation of such a multitude as cannot possibly conspire to tell a lie to wit in attesting onely that Christ's doctrine which is of a most concerning nature and of a most visible quality was taught to a world of Children by a world of Fore-fathers This clear and short explication of our tenet premised let us see how weakly Dr. H. hath proceeded in this dangerous point His first weakness is that he thinks Mr. Knot 's saying very strange that we might
that he is sure the Protestants are not so persuaded nor ever had cōvincing Grounds represented to persuade them of it referring me to a book of his own called The View of Infallibility In answer I refer him to Rushworth's Dialogues and assure him that if he be not blinded with prejudice or interest he may see it there shown as perfectly as that two and three are five And as for his Book I find no such worthy stuffe in these as can invite me to think an hour well spent in perusing that Brother of theirs After this going about to vindicate the uncertainty on the Protestant's side he runs p. 21. 22. again to their full or verily-persuasion but never tells us whether this full persuasion of theirs sprung from the light of pure Reason that is Evidence or from passion interest and ignorance adding a parallel of beleeving that King Henry the eighth was King of this Nation the reasons whereof notwithstanding he accounts fallible because the testimonies of meer men Whereas I account it most evident and demonstrable and promise him to have acquitted himself better than ever Protestant did yet if he can show me the thousandth part of this Certainty which he puts here for a parallel of the Protestant's Vncertainty for any point in which they differ from us that is for any point which they have not received as handed down by Tradition or Attestation of Fore fathers For never let him expect to make a rational man beleeve that scruing or misunderstanding an odde line or two glean'd for the nonce out of Scripture or and old Authour can by any multiplication arrive to the clearness of the former ample undeniable uncontroulable Verdict of witnesses that King H. the eighth vas King of this Nation much lesse to that of our Rule of Faith being an attestion of things infinitely more importing which a multitude incomparably more numerous had seen visible in practice besides other assistant motives implanted by the Apostles the Holy Ghost especially cooperating in the hearts of the first faithful and still continued to this day which strengthen man's nature to the impossibility of erring in such an Attestation This vast advantage hath our Rule of Faith over this instance of K. H's reign here yet I doubt not to affirm that the testification of the latter renders it demonstrable which I thus show This undoubted and never yet-denyed persuasion that K. H. the eighth reigned here imprinted in the hearts of all in England not onely attested by all Fathers in that Nation but even by innumerable multitudes in other Countries his foul acts making him famous this persuasion I say is an Effect and consequently sprung from some Cause but no Cause can be imaginable in reason able either to breed this strong persuasion in such a world of knowing persons nor bribe so many attesters to a conspiracy of witnessing such a visible thing except the Being of King H. and of his Reign therefore he was or did reign here otherwise this persuasion and attestation had been effects without causes or which is all one without proportionable causes which being evidently impossible it is also evident and demonstrable that he did rule in England Now whoever should goe about to answer the major by putting some Cause as possible to be in it self proportionable and so able to produce this strange Effect besides the Existence of K. H. the eighth the very position would disgrace it self and the Authour when the proportions of it's efficacity came to be scann'd and apply'd to the Vniversal and strange Effect spoken of Again should a man consider this ample and uncontrolled attestation of it and all the other motives which infer it as King H's Wives Alliances abroad Warres Acts of Parliaments Embassadours in all parts Descent Apostatizing together with the infinite multitude of Conveyances Bonds Iudgments Foundations and innumerable such other things relating to such and such a year of his Reign and after all these fully considered should notwithstanding seriously express his doubt that he could not beleeve there was ever any such man would not all that heard him justly think him a mad man If so then surely he must have renounc't no less than rigorous Evidence and Demonstration the onely perfect light of Reason who can deserve justly such a censure It was therefore rigorously evident and demonstrable that King H. the eighth was Thirdly if it be not evident and demonstrable the contrary may possibly be such for one side must needs be true so all truths being connected in it'ts own nature demonstrable but it is evidently impossible the contrary should be demonstrable or the motives for it show'd not-concluding therefore they concluded demonstrably The minor is prov'd clearly for first it is not against any natural Science and consequently not possibly disprovable by natural reason nor yet by any Authority for in our case there is an Attestation for it uncontrolled by any either orally or by writing Wherefore there is left no means possible to goe about to confute it or evidence the contrary it self therefore is most perfectly and most strongly evident and demonstrable nay impossible to be deemed or pretended to be shown otherwise Bring not then Mr. H. this infallibly-and demonstrably-grounded instance for a parallel of your vertible and Wind-mill uncertainty till you can show you can produce the million'th part of that Evidence and certainty but rather be asham'd to pretend to make head against our Rule of Faith which is of an attesting Authority incomparably more numerous more clear and more strongly supported by all kind of imaginable assisting circumstances than was that now explicated with obscure or misinterpreted scraps of dead Authours cast into what mold you please by Id est's self-explications and voluntary deductions according to the easily-bending nature of words That is blush to have renounc't your Reason in renouncing Evidence of Authority to follow unreasonableness in assenting upon ambiguous probabilities After this to clear himself from denying Infallibility which denial was charged and hath been shown to take away all beleef and ground of Beleef he tells us pag. 23. It is evident that beleef is no more than consent to the truth of any thing and the grounds of beleef such arguments as are sufficient to exclude doubting to induce conviction and persuasion But sure Mr. H. forgets what he is about for to divine beleef which is commanded by God himself and so cannot be sinfull not every consent ought to serve but a rational one nor any conviction but such an one as is rational that is grounded upon Evidence of that Authorities veracity in that which she proposes to be beleeved which how it can stand with her fallibility in the same point is past Dr. H's skil to make good since if it be once known that she can erre in it it can never be shown thats he does not there being no certainer Authority than her self to testify certainly when she hits and when
she failes for I hope Dr. H. will not say it must be Scripture without an Interpreter of Scripture and if so who a more certain Interpreter than her self If he say she must compare her self with other Churche's he not onely grants each may erre but even Repl. p. 15. l. 32. after recourse had to the said means he onely puts here pag. 16. l. 1. that it is not strongly probable that such a Church will erre so that if she can erre she does erre for any thing any body knows What follows is onely a trifling defence of himself for his bad disputing He was accused by us of a Schism twisted with Heresy he defended himself by alledging that he held not our Church Infallible which he knows we charge upon the deniers as the heresy of heresies Now his excuse for this Logick is that he put Repl. p. 24. onely a fiction of case but 't is plain he relies upon that fiction as on a real Ground saying there expressely of Schism p 28. 29. that he needs give no more distinct answer than this first that they not holding the Church of Rome infallible may be allow'd to make some suppositions c. Again he sayes he makes but one but yet he there puts down four so that the difficulty is onely this to determine in whether place he deserves most to be trusted or which of them is the child of his second thoughts Lastly he imposes falsly upon the Cath. Gentl. Repl. p. 26. that he requires him at the begenning of the dispute to grant the Chvrch of Rome infallible Whereas we onely mind him that since he is accused of a Schism link't with Heresy he ought to show that his motives bear the weight of a perfect Evidence notwithstanding the counterpoise of our Rule of Faith the Churche's Infallibility and not suppose this first and then run a Voluntary upon what he had granted himself gratis Thus I have given an answer to Dr. H's third Section of his second Chapter to which he referred me In which I confess to have been larger than the rigour of answering required but the point of Power to oblige Beleef was as I conceived very important and well worth clearing neither do I remember to have read it in any other place fetcht from it's first Grounds that so I might refer the Reader thither I have also vindicated the Cath Gentl. something more particularly than I proposed to my self at first or than was my obligation which was onely this to clear those passages in him which vere coincident with mine Hereafter I fear the apprehension of my future prolixity will not let me exceed my first-intended limits SECT 14. How Dr. H. defends the sufficiency of his Division charged to want the three most principal sorts of Schism and solely important to the Controversy THe third Chapter in his Reply begins with curing his Division of Schism which was shown by the Cath. Gentl. to want two of it's best limbs and those too most useful in this present controversy that to wit of Schism from the whole Church and from Authority of Councils also by S. W. to be pittifully maimed of the third which was against subjection to some one Superiour His skill employ'd in plastering it comes to this that all Schism is either in inferiours against Superiours or in equals against equals Rep. p. 28. He should have said against some one Superiour in the singular for his Discourse in his book of Schism never look't further which occasion'd the Cath. Gentleman's calling it Monarchical His first excuse for his first fault is that it is strange to think that that man who breaks from the whole Church was not comprised in either member of his division when certainly he is guilty of both This it is to forget one's Logick for let the man be where he will our question is of the sin Schism against the whole Church which is therefore not comprised in any one head because it is in an higher nature sinfull and so exceeds it Sacriledge and Patricide according to the common notions are found indeed in every simple theft and murther but according to their specifical differences by which they are distinguish't from them they exceed them and so are not compris'd in them This Particularity then and Specialty of schismatical guilt in breaking from the whole Church makes a man in a higher and more special manner faulty And this is the reason why we require that the Specialty of this Schism should as it ought be taken notice of by ranking it in a Special head which was omitted by Mr. H. who talk't onely of the petty Schisms against some one particular Superiour not against all in collection nor against the whole Church And here when he is challenged of it in stead of showing us that this greater sin is compris'd in one of those lesser heads he privaricates from the question which is about the sin and talks of the man who is compris'd in his Division for having done another sin less than this and not for having done this His second excuse or rather his continuation of the former is the saddest piece of Logick that ever was read and begins at the wrong end He is accused of omitting Schism against the whole Church and pretends he treated it as involved in another to wit in Schism against some particular Governour and Schism against Charity to our Equals which he proves in these words Repl. p. 28. For how can one separate from the whole Church unless he separate both from his Superiours and equals too which indeed had been to some purpose in case he had treated of Schism against the whole Church and omitted Schism against some particular Superiour or against Equals Otherwise for this purpose in hand he must argue in a quite contrary manner and put it thus How can one separate from a particular Superiour or from his Equals but he must in so doing separate from the whole Catholick Church and then the wise argument had evidently bewray'd it's weakness In a word either he means by Superiours some of them onely and then he runs over boots into a Contradiction to get out of a less fault in which he stood wet-shod for some of them cannot be aâ—â— or the whole Church or if by Superiours he means all then let him show me that in his Book of Schism he hath treated of that which is against all the Superiours of the Church in any collective sense if not then let him confess without more shuffling that he treated not of Schism against the whole Church As for his omitting Schism against the Authority of Councils he endeavours to clear it first by seeming to doubt whether Councils have any Authority Durum telum necessitas in another occasion I doubt not but he would extoll to the skies those Councils which deposed a Pope though now because he had granted them no Authority in omitting Schism against them he can shuffle up and
pittifully this discourse hangs together that those Bishops shall be under the Patriarch of Alexandria seeing the Pope hath under him I cannot tell what or whom whereas however our Adversaries may pretend the material sense of one of the parts false yet themselves must confess that there is no difficulty in the formal coherence of the whole if it be supposed to signify thus That he shall have those for his Subjects because the Pope is accustomed to hold them for such or to judge it so This is yet more confirm'd because in both Languages it is evident that the Latine Hoc and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot possibly refer any thing but the thing decreed to wit that the Bishops named should be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria This explication holding and hold it must till Mr. H. can show me a better that is another which shall agree better with the words and make better sense which will be never two things follow for us First that it was the Pope's custome to handle and judge matters belonging to the Patriarchy of Alexandria Next that the Council govern'd it self in this important matter by the custome of the Bishop of Rome Both which infer in all probability his higher Authority and make for us though intended otherwise Some Interpreters indeed are of opinion that this Canon was intended to order the Iurisdiction of the Patriarchs but this is a perfect Chimerical imagination originiz'd from the inveÌ„tion of those whose hatred against the Church of Rome occasion'd by their own guilt made them willing to say any thing in prejudice of Her though without all Ground either in the letter of the Canon as hath been shown or in the history of the Councils for nothing is more evident in this latter than that there was treated in the cause of Meletius Bishop of Licopolis â—n Egypt who refused to be subject to the Patriarch of Alexandria and therefore that Canon chiefly touches thâ—t Patriarchy of which also the particulars are there specify'd nothing being order'd there concerning either Antioâ—h or the West but that their priviledges that is what by custome they had gotten should he conserved and continued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things standing thus no man unless driven by the desperate condition of his cause to catch at any thing can gather any such sense out of the words of the Canon Notwithstanding 't is granted that Schismaticks commonly make this Interpretation of it whose opinions were they any thing prejudicial to our Cause as they are not but most weak being of Adversaries yet they are made incomparably weaker by having Ruffinus for their Patron and first Founder of this Interpretation Who also to come nearer our question proceeding upon this former conceit added the word Suburbicarias without all Ground or show of Ground whether out of silliness and ignorance of propriety of Speech meaning to signify by that word all the Western Churches under the Empire of the City of Rome whose subjection to the Pope his eyes testify'd and other Schismaticks confess or out of knavery and malice it is uncertain This by the way is certain that an irregular proceeding and miscarriage sprung from both may justly be expected from Ruffinus But because this language of mine against this Paraphrast may be imagin'd to have sprung from passion by Dr. H. and some of his particular Friends who proceeding upon their Ground of uncertainty and indifferency of Religion have got a conceit that the preserving of courtesy is more worth than the preserving of souls from eternal damnation and that though one who does such a mischief be a knave and a fool both yet he cannot without incivility and scurrility be shown plainly to be either again because Mr. H. is such a veneratour of Antiquity that he deemes any testimony nay any one obscure word of any either old-knave or old-fool provided he lived but in the ancient times very competent to found his Religion on and worthy his vindication so it seem for his purpose we will see whether the character given Ruffinus by other Authours beyond all exception be more moderate than S. W's what unanswerable prejudices are producible against this Paraphrast his testification which Dr. H. here undertakes to vindicate First S. Hierom tells us contra Ruff. Apol. 2. that Ruffinus was excommunicated and cauteriz'd for heresy to wit Origenism and Pelagianism and that by Pope Anastasius as appeares both by the letter of the said Pope to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem as also by the same S. Hierom ibid upbraiding him that he so fled the judgement of the City of Rome that he rather â—hose to abide the siege of the Barbarians to wit in Aquilâ—ia besieged by Alaricus whither Ruffinus had retired himself than the sentence of a peaceable Town And again in the same book speaking of Ruffinus his Confession of his Faith which he feigned to have been approved by the Bishop of Italy he asks him how Italy should approve that which Rome had rejected and how the Bishops should receive that which the Apostolick See had condemned Adde to these which makes his prejudice most notorious and so his testimony most invalid that he writ his History after the entrance of Alaricus into Italy that is under the Popedome of Innocentius Successour of Anastasius and so had as much reason to write in prejudice of that See as an incorrigible and obstinate Heretick could have having been excommunicated by the same See before he writ Hence it is that he never meets with any occasion to speak of the Pope and Church of Rome but he spits his venome as may appear Euseb hist Eccles l. 5. cap 24. where speaking of Pope Victor he adds of his own in one place one whole line in another two in his prejudice Is not this then a fit Authouâ— to be first alledged afterwards vindicated by his fellow-brother and Friend Dr. H. who for no less guilt stands excommunicated by the same Church Thus much for his passion and prejudice which make his knavery very credible now Secondly as for his doltish ignorance he was the Monster of that and all future ages for eminency in that talent Some instances of it may be that he in hist Eccles Euseb l. 1. c. 1. makes of Iames Bishop of Hierusalem Iames Bishop of the Apostles of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Happy a Saint by name Macarius of Eusebius of Pamphilus Heretick and Arian Pamphilus Catholick and Martyr of Xystus Pythagorian and Pagan Philosopher Xystus Pope and Martyr of Chorepiscopus spoken of by the eighth Canon of the Council of Nice the vacant place of a Bishop and such innumerable others that St. Hierom ibid. affirmed him to be so unskilfull in either language that he was taken for a Greek by the Latines and for a Latin by the Grecians Must not he be a very wise man who sticks not first to build upon next to vindicate so wise an
that Authority not the want of Authority it self The second Testimony that they which are excommunicated by some shall not be received by others is the onely place in this Section most likely to infer the Doctor 's Conclusion that the Popes is not Supreme which indeed it does most amply if taken in it's whole latitude and extent but withall the Doctor must confess that if it be taken so it utterly destroys all Government and his former testimony from the Milevitan Council to boot For if those words be universally true then it is unlawful for a Priest to appeal from his Bishop to an Arch-Bishop Primate or Provincial Council granted in the said testimony which takes away all Authority in a Superiour over the Acts and Decrees of an Inferiour and by consequence all Government Now then since the said testimony which indeed was mean't of the Appeals of Priests and so is already answerd'd cannot serve him unless taken in it's full extent nor can it be taken so whitout subverting all Ground of Government it follows that it cannot serve him at all nor prejudice us Again since it cannot be taken as denying Appeals from Subordinate to Superiour Governours universally Mr. H's grounds must make it conclude against us by making it signify a denial of Appeals to Coequals in Authority onely Wherefore all it's force is built on this supposition that the Pope is not Superiour but coequal onely to a Patriarch so that his Argument is epitomiz'd into this pithy piece of sense as true as the first Principles which he must suppose to make this proof valid that the Pope not being Head of the Church is not Head of the Church and then all is clearly evidenced The third testimony We entreat you that you would not easily admit those to your Communion who are excommunicated by us is so far from gain-saying the Pope's power that the very expressions of which it is fram'd are rather so many acknowlegdments of it being onely a request not that he would not receive their Appeals or admit them at all much less that he could not but onely that he would not admit them easily that is without due and mature examination of the cause Now who sees not that an humble desire that he would not doe it easily intimates or supposes he had a power to doe it absolutely This is confirm'd by their subjoyning as the reason of their request not because the Pope had no power to admit others but because the Council of Nice had so decreed knowing that it was a strong motive for them and an obligation in the Supreme Governour to conserve the Laws of the Church inviolate unless Evidence that in these Circumstances it crost the common good licenc't him to use his extraordinary Authority in that Extremity and to proceed now not upon Laws but upon the dictates of Nature the Ground and Rule of all Laws So perfectly innocent to our cause are all the testimonies of weight alledged by Mr. H. against it if they be left to themselves and not inspired with malice by the bad meaning he will needs instill into them against their own good nature The fourth testimony is stil like Dr. H. as he maintains a bad cause that is incomparably weak and short of concluding any thing 'T is this that the Bishops of every Nation must account the Primate their Head What then is not a Parish-Priest Head of a Parish a Bishop Head of his Diocese an Arch-Bishop Head of his Arch-Bishoprick as well as a Primate Head of his Primacy Does it then follow from a Bishops being Head of the Priests in his Diocese that there is no degree of Authority Superiour to his yet this apply'd to a Primate is all Dr. H's argument to prove none higher than he But it is pretty to observe in what strange words he couches his inference from hence which saith he Repl. p. 40. sure infers that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely Head of all Bishops Observe that canting phrase one onely Head c His intent here manifestly was to show no degree of Authority Superiour to Patriarchs to prove this he alledges this testimony now agitated and then because he saw it would not carry home to the mark be aymed it at he infers warily that the Pope is not the one onely Head of all Bishops By which expression he prepares an evasion beforehand when the inconsequence of his discourse from the said testimony shall be obâ—ected or else would persuade the unwary Reader that we hold the Pope so Head of the the Church as that we admit not Primates to be Head of the Bishops under them Whereas our tenet is that as Primates are immediate Heads of the Metropolitans so the Pope is Head or Superiour over Primates and by consequence Supreme over the whole Church yet so Supreme as he leaves to Subordinate Governours their Headship inviolate over their proper Inferiours Thus much to his Testimonies concerning Appeals His other manner of arguing against the Pop'es Supremacy or his being a summum genus is from names and titles deny'd him The first testimony is from Decret part 1. dist 99. cap. 3. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus Sacerdos that the Bishop of the first Seat ought not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest which the African Council confirms with aut aliquid eiusmodi sed tantum primae sedes Episcopus The second is from the same place cap. 4. Nec â—â—iam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The third from the Epistle of Pope Pelagius Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur c. No Patriarch must use the title of Vniversal for if one Patriarch be called Vniversal the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest The fourth is their thred-bare and often answered testimony of Saint Gregory refusing the title of Vniversal Bishop But first these testimonies come short of what they are intended for in this that none speaks of the right of Iurisdiction but onely of names and titles as appears by the words appelletur appellandus Vniversalitatis vocabulo superbae appellationis verbum in the testimonies which denote no exception against any Authority but against the titular expression of it onely which sounded proudly and seem'd inconvenient and new at that time Secondly it is a great weakness in understanding the nature of words not to advert that the vogue of the world altering from plainess to complementalness as it does stil daily the same word may be used without fear of pride at one time which could not at another nay the same thing may be fitly signify'd by some word at some time which cannot be signify'd by the same at another as for example Tyrannus once was proper for a King ruling according to law and right which now is not competent but to him who rules arbitrarily against both or rather indeed once it signify'd a power
in my evidencing book of Schism therefore he hath no such Authority here The antecedent is supposed as a first Principle known by the light of nature Next he argues thus I may surely say he hath no Supremacy therefore he hath none Lastly I must have leave to suppose we had convincing reasons for casting him out and my Companions think the same Ergo I have removed all appearance of râ—ason from the Romanist's whole exceptions With such slight talking as this kind Readers Dr. H. would gull Souls into Hell and which is the misery of miseries send them thither with non-sense in their Heads Sect. 2. How Dr. H. prevaricates from his formerly-pretende Evidences His ignorance of the way of interpreting Scripture manifested in his groundless explication of The Lot of Apostleship Act. 1. for a lesser Province Dr. H. in his fourth Chapter of Schism to undo the Pope's Vniversal Pastourshiâ— undertakes to undo St. Peter's first by showing that his Commission was limited to the Iews onely To do which handsomly he would limite the Iurisdiction of each Apostle likewise to certain Provinces lest his particular pique against the Pope's Predecessour S. Peter should be too notorious and manifest that his passion had engag'd him in a partiality against that Blessed Prince of the Apostles But because this doctrine of the Apostles exclusive Provinces as he calls them Of Schism p. 70. limiting their universal Iurisdiction was so rare a novelty that blind Antiquity never so much as dream't on 't nor any Authour that I can â—ear of ever so much as nam'd or mention'd it before he fetches the first root of their pedigree their An est from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the lot of Apostleship and Iudas his proper place in Hell which he will have signify exclusive Provinces restraining the Iurisdiction or Power of each single Apostle His Disarmer first show'd then challeng'd him of Schism p. 47. that his interpretation of the first place for Exclusive Provinces which was his first Evidence or rather the Ground of his future Evidences was so strong and unmoveable that it alone resisted the whole world being evidently opposite to common sence repugnant expressely to Scripture injuriously contrary to all Antiquity prevaricating from the translation of their own Church and lastly contradictory to himself The Cath. Gent. calls the interpretations wretched and blasphemous This was our charge let us see now his defence First asham'd to father his own Grounds or his own words Answ p. 38. he denies that he mean't these for Evidences or ever thought on them as such But God be praised his own book of Schism is extant which pag. 70. ends the fourth parag by professing to offer his Evidences after which begins the fifth parag thus And first it is evident by Scripture that S. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision or Iews exclusively to the Vncircumcision c. and no Evidences from Scripture pretented in the same parag but these two miserable mistakes of it already noted from which Repl. p. 50. l. 11. he pretends to deduce that distinction of Provinces Next he tells us in the same place that it needed no Evidencing the thing being evident by it's own light that the Apostles went not all to one but disposed themselves over all the world to several Provinces If this were his sole intent there then why did himself professedly go about to evidence p. 70. l. 4. what he tells us here needs no evidencing Or what was his meaning to labour so hard with testimonies and Id ests from the fifth parag to the twentieth now by pretending irrefragable now unquestionable Evidences to prove that which he tells us here is evident by it's own light and needs no other But indeed that was not his intent then but to show their Iurisdictions exclusively limited as shall be seen though in this Book of his second thoughts preceiving it was impossible to make good his proofs or excuse his Id ests manifested by his Disarmer to be so impertinent he prevaricates from the whole question and relinquishesâ— position which could he have proved it might have doâ—e him some service for another which though granted does him none at all For what hurt is it to S. Peter's Headship among the Apostles if some went one way some another to preach Thirdly he is terribly rigorous against S. W. in telling him in the same place that his seventh Section is borrowâ—d from the Cath Gent. For besides that the Cath. Gent. puts onely one exception against Mr. H's wrong interpretâ—tion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas S. W. put seven no honest man living who is true to his cause and hath more regard to it's good than to an aiery flash of his own honour will refuse to write to the same sence another hath writ before him onely because himself was not the first Authour or Inventer of that sence if he sees that neither himself nor any man else could write better upon that point which were in effect to renounce reason because it is not originiz'd from his own invention but proposed first by another In this manner all Catholick writers borrow all they write from the Church striving to come as near her sence and Grounds as they can possibly and not vainly hugging self-fancied Grounds of their own as is the Protestant's mode But this shows what kind of Spirit Dr. H. is of who thinks it a disgrace to write what one deems truth if it hap to be the doctrine or sence of another and account it his onely vain-glorious honour to be the first broacher of new explications of Scripture and other rare inventions never before heard of Of which humour of his this present point is a pittiful instance his book of Schism a perfect model his Folio-Annotations on the Bible ae large Map as some more prudent Friends of his own complain Fourthly whereas he says here that my seventh Section is answered Repl. c. 4. Sect. 2. 't is a great mistake the greater part of my exceptions being not so much as touched there And surely it had been a great providence if going about there onely to answer the Cath. Gentleman's one exception he should have answered before-hand by a kind of prophetical foresight all my seven Fifthly to come to his Reply the pretended place for answer he is accused for being a bad Interpreter and he spends the greatest part of his pains in showing himself a good Grammarian and manifesting the notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which is a quite different thing The same word may have twenty several notions in it self but hath ordinarily but one of those as it is found in the Context and Syntax with other words The significations of words are to be found in Dictionaries the Interpretation of them as they stand in propositions depends upon the antecedents consequents with all the other train of concomitant Circumstances especially upon the import of the
Church How necessary an endowment is a good memory to defend a bad cause Thirdly he onely denyes as he sayes that this Primacy gave him any power over S. Paul and that I will remember he had reason to deny it from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall honour given S. Paul by Chrysostome and Theophylact. I remember indeed the words but have quite forgot that he had any reason to deduce from those words equality of honor sprung from Government or power of command having shown from those fathers explicating themselves that it is impossible the words can beare that interpretation Fourthly in relation to those words he did not vindicate any thing to himself insolently or assume it arrogantly as to say he had the Primacy and rather ought to bee obeyed c. Dr. H. discant's with this glosse leaving us saith he p. 47. to resolve that if he had claimed any obedience at all from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him Thus he soe that the difference between Dr. H. and mee in explicating this place stands thus that he makes those words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assump sit to signify that S. Peter's praise worthines exprest consisted in his not chalenging what did not truly belong to him whereas I make it consist in his not chalenging it in those circumstances though it truly belonged to him he would have the words insolenter and arroganter so taken as if the pride they denoted did involve falsehood injustice or overweening whereas I contend that they signify onely in an insolent and proud manner well exprest in our English phrase by standing upon his point which well consists with the truth of what he challenges and the right of what he assumes Ere I descend to manifest that this is the sence of that place I desire the Reader to review the entire testimony in which he will do right both to my discourse and his own memory and when he hath done this I offer him for his satisfaction these following notes First that it had been no such great commendation of humility to say that S. Peter did not usurpingly challenge what was not his right but rather an impudence and an absurd haughtines to have done it since then the fathers intend here a particular commendation of S. Peter's modesty it must consist in this that though he might with rigour of right have stood upon his tip-toes as wee may say yet his goodnes so moderated his height that he was content with mildenes to bear an inferiour's reprehensions in which great vertue is shown and which being put those fathers suppose that truly he was Superiour Secondly unles this bee the meaning of that place wee have quite lost the adversative sence which yet is unavoidable for what sence is this Though our Lord chose him to be the first yet he did not challenge to himself more then belongs to him or what speciall commendation do these words import Though King Iames was King of England yet he did not challenge or assume to himself to bee Emperour of Germany sure it must bee an enuy of S. Peter's sanctity as well as of his dignity to diminish his praise-worthines intended here by so frivolous and incoherent an explication Thirdly the words non vindicauit sibi aliquid insolenter he challenged not any thing insolently to himself make good my explication for it had been a very hard case if he could have challenged nothing at all to himself with truth according to these fathers no not even that which themselves had granted the line before to wit that our Lord had chosen him to bee the first and had built his Church upon him with truth therefore he might have challenged that which out of modesty he stood not insolenty and arrogantly upon Fourthly Dr. H. grants that a Primacy at least in some sence is granted S. Peter from this place wherefore the redditive part of the testimony yet he challenged not any thing c. so as to say he had the Primacy must be granted to bee true also or rather it is the self same Neither is it possible that any man not totally possest by prejudice can imagine any other but that in these words Though our Lord chose him to bee the first yet he said not or alledged not that he had the Primacy or was the first the latter part should be false unles the former were so too Firfthly this being so the following words in the reddiâ—ive part of the testimony and ought rather to be obey'd by laâ—er Apostles c. must necessarily bee true too since they follow in the same tenour of redditive sence to the adversative and are joyned immediately by a copulative particle to the former of having the Primacy True therefore it is that he might in right expect obedience in other circumstances from S. Paul and by consequence this Primacy here spoken of was not a dry and barren one as the Dr. would fancy it Sixthly the subsequent words of his not objecting to S. Paul that he had been a persecutour of the Church make it yet more evident since he might with truth have said so but of his goodnes would not since then the foregoing word 's of his having the Primacy are true and the following ones also of S. Paul's having been a persecutour are true also upon what grounds can this Adversary of S Peter's imagine that the midle words importing his rather right to S. Paul's obedience which run on in the same even tenour with both the other should be false or how could he â—hink to evade by deducing from those words that the fathers left us to resolve hence that if hee had claimed any obedience from Paul by this Primacy he could not have iustified it from arrogance of assuming that which did not belong to him nay making this the summe of his answer to that place Lastly the concluding words but admitted the counsell of truth expressing the result of the whole busines show that iâ— plainly imports an Encomium of S. Peter's candour that wheÌ„ the thing objected against him was true he maintained not his own saying by Authority but made his heâ—gâ—h of dignity exprest there to bee most eminent stoop to the sincere acceptation of truth which in a Superiour and Governour is a most laudable carriage and an unparalell'd commendation And thus Dr. H. comes of in answering S. W. first testimony which being prest speaks more against him then was at first intended being onely brought to show that these fathers thought that manner of carriage between S. Peter and S. Paul exprest Gal. 11. rather argued S. Peter's greater humility then his lesser or equall Authority After Mr. H. had endeavoured by wresting the former testimony to win S. Cyprian and S. Austin to side with him against S. Peter's Authority he proceeds to destroy the Popes
follows by most absolute necessary consequence that they must be all Schismaticks and Blessed S. Peter their Ringleader But 't is no matter with him rather shall S. Peter instead of being Head of the Church be an Head of Schismaticks than Dr. H. be acknowledged a Schismatick a falsifier and not onely the Authority but also the Sanctity of that holy Apostle be sacrific'd to the Protestant interest rather than so great a Patron of theirs and so saintly a falsifier shall want an evasion to soder his crack't credit Neither let Dr. H. think to escape making S. Peter his Iewish converts Schismaticks by saying that this was a prudent managery onely Rep. p. 62. so iustifiable by the present circumstances since it is most undeniable that the breaking of all Communion with another Church is the extern Act of Schism then let him remember his own grounds layd against himself in his first Chapter of Schism p. 10. that the matter of fact onely is to be considered not the causes or motives Since eo ipso that fact is Schism nor can be iustifi'd from being such by any causes motives or circumstances what-soever Now then since the fact of breaking from all-Communion which the Gentile Church that is of Schism from it is in expresse terms imputed to S. Peter his Iewish Proselytes by Dr. H. I expect then what possible motive this Author can pretend to alledge sufficient to excuse them from Schism whose doctrine it is in the place cited that no motive or reason was sufficient to render matter of fact of this nature excusable or iustify it from being Schism nay damnable worse then sacriledge Idolatry c. as the fathers there cited by D H. avouch The summe then of this part of Dr. H's defence is that he takes no notice at all of his falsifying by adding the onely important large-senc't word All to the Scripture nor attempts to clear himself of it but instead of doing this he goes about to maintain his position counterfeited to be found there to wit that Iewish Christians withdrew from all-Communion with the Gentile ones by this argument that it was equally forbidden by Moses his law to converse with or preach to a Gentile as to eate their diet A paradox so incomparably notoriously absurd that it is at once both perfectly opposite to the law it self repugnant to innumerable examples from Scripture to the contrary the universall practice of the Synagogue injurious to the Iewish Church in it's purest times making them frequently publikely uncontrolledly break the law in a point as he saies equally forbidden as eating the Gentile diet implicatory in terms supposing once the lawfulnes of making a Proselyte impertinent to his present purpose circumstances were it granted expressely contradictory to his own words about which the present contest was raised derogating from those ancient Primitive Christians all charity nay even in the least and sleightest degree and lastly beyond all evasion making them perfectly Schismaticks S. Peter their Ring-leader and that proceeding on Dr. H's own grounds Nor hath he any thing to counterpoâ—ze this heap of absurdities of the Seuenteens but onely a misunderstood place of Scripture of which himself must be the Interpreter which is the right Protestant Method who build their faith upon any Text which seems at first sight to make for them or is hard to explicate although universall Tradition of the foregoing Church importing involving bringing downe to us all imaginable motives of the contrary truth evidence that Interpretation to be impossible But 't is no matter what Dr. H. does or sayes if he can but talk any thing gentilely sleightly the grave negligence must supply the want of sence Truth especially if hee but shut upwith a victorious Epiphonema pronounced with a serious-sobersadnes Repl p. 61. l. vlt. Thus unhappy is this gentleman continually in his objections all is well and his sleight-sould Sermon-admiâ—ers take that to be the rarest Nectar of reason which if examin'd is the most sublimated quintessence of contradiction-absurdity as hath amply been shown Now as for S. Peter's words that it was unlawfull for a man that was a Iew to keep company or come to one that is of ther Nation upon which onely he build his position otherwise altogether destitute of any shadow of proof I answer that the Scribes such like pretenders to a preciser Kinde of holines had lately introduced many customes of their owne forging under the notion of Traditions of some of which they are accused by our saviour and obtruded them upon the consciences of the Iews to be religiously observed especially at Hierusalem the Rendevous of Iewish Doctors and the place where their doctrine had more immediate influence upon the mindes of of thei Auditors Of those precise customes this was one of not going to a Gentiles house or conversing with them To this amongst others S. Peter was inured by long education in so much that though he heard our B. Saviour with his own mouth give them commission to go to preach all over the world in vniuersum mundum and omni creaturae to every creature yet finding employment enough amongst those of the Circumcision he never attempted it till by a vision he was immediately set upon it by Almighty God especially the obligation to his country laying a stronger ty upon him and having received order to preach first to the Iews untill they shew'd themselves unworthy he needed a vision to tell him when that time came circumstances were ripe for it In like manner we read that S. Paul though chosen particularly to preach to the Gentiles Act. 9. 15. yet he affirmed Act. 13 46. that it was necessary that the words of God should first have been spoken to the Iews did not turn to the Gentiles but upon their rejecting him By unlawfull then in this place I take not to bee mean't not against the law of Moses but what their Teachers and Doctors who govern'd their Consciences bore them in hand was unlawfull in the same manner as wee now call many things unlawfull which are not found forbidden by Christ's law but which our Doctours and Casuists iudge to bee unlawfull Again wee read that though the Apostles and Brethren that were in Iudea had heard that the Gentiles had received the word of God Act. 11. v. 1. yet the second verse let ts us know of none that found fault with him save those at Hierusalem onely and that not meerly upon the account of going to the houses of Gentiles but of eating with them also as the third verse expresses But let their zeal have been never so hot to maintain this new-fangled apprehension and let it bee never so universall to abhorre the conversation of Gentiles whiles they remain'd Gentiles yet it is the strangest fancy that ever entred into a rational head to imagin that they should still retain the same uncharitable feud towards them after
tells me Answ p. 48. l. 35. that that wherein Rome was concern'd is reviewed Repl c. 9. where nothing is found to that purpose nor any where else save onely in the Sect. 7. par 6. Where when I came to look in expectation of some return to my exceptions I found that he onely enumerated briefly the same testimonies of his former book his irrefâ—agable one as he calls it from the Popes â—eales his falsification as shall be seen ere long concerning Linus Clemens which he tells us again are evidences that they clear that part which concerned Rome and then having made this learned mock-Reply that is said over again out of his former book what had been excepted against by mee related us back in the margent to that very place in it which I had impugned as thus manifoldly weak he ends with these words that Sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter That bold fac'd word Sure is a Sure card and Mr. H's Ace of th' trumps there is no resisting it when the game seems quite gone it retrives the losse carries all before it My answer was that all which those testimonies intimated might have been performed by promiscuous preaching of each both to th' Iews Gentiles the summe of his Reply is onely this that Sure it cannot I objected that those testimonies were weak concluded nothing at all of such a distinction he answers that they are clear are evidences that Sure there can need no farther proof So that we have now got a fourth express proofe added to his Wee know I say I suppose to wit his owne Sure the Sure naile fasten'd by the master of the Protestant Assembly Dr. H. As for the testimony of S. Prosper in which he was accused to render Ecclesiam Gentium the Church of the Nations lest S. Peter S. Paul should both have meddled with Gentiles in Rome which words should they be render'd the Church of the Gentiles must necessarily follow he referts me to his Repl. p. 65. parag 10. for satisfaction where he acquaints me with his desire that the truth of his interpretation may be consider'd by the words cited from him The words are these in ipsâ Hierusalem lacobus c. Iames at Hierusalem Iohn at Ephesus Andrew the rest through out all Asia Gentium Ecclesiam sacrârunt consecrated the Church of the Nations sayes Dr. H. Gentiles says S. W. Vpon this testimony Dr. H. argues thus What Nations were these Sure of Iews aswell as Gentiles then follow the Grounds of this his assurance else Hierusalem could be no part of them no nor Iohn's converts at Ephesus for they were Iews and then he concludes his mild-reasoning discourse with as mild a reprehension that therefore the Catholike Gentleman did not doe well Now as for his Sure 't is indeed a pregnant expression but I deny the sufficiency of the Authoritie which so Magisterially pronounces it And for what concerns the Grounds of his assurance they are both of them found onely in his own sayings no where in any testimony my tenet he knows is that all those Apostles preach't promiscuously to Gentiles also where soever they came But lest he should think me hard hearted for not beleeving his Sure I shall at least show my self far from cruelty in making him this friendly proffer that if he can show mee any one word in any testimony yet produc't which expresses that S. Iames preach't to Iews onely in Hierusalem or S. Iohn to Iews onely in Ephesus upon which alone he builds here that Gentium cannot signifie Gentiles I will pardon him the answering this whole book which to doe on any fashion will I know be very laborious shamefull to him but to doe it satisfactorily impossible unles he could put out his Reader 's Eyes so hinder them from reading his corrupted falsified citations aright Is there anything easier then to show us an exclusive particle or expression if any such thing were to be found there But if there be none what an emptines vanity open cozenage of his Reader is it to cry Sure Surely Certainly Vnquestionably and the like when there is no other warrant to ground this assurance save his owne weake fancy inconsequent deductions hâ—s interlac'd parenthesisses his facing the testimonies with antecedent peecing them with subsequent words whiles in the meane time the testimony it self must stand by look on onely like a conditio sine quâ non as if it were an honourable spectator to grace his personating and not have any efficacious influence or act any part in the Argument which bears it's title But to come to the testimony it self first I would know of Mr. H. how oft he hath read Gentes taken alone without any additionall determining expression to signifie both Iews Gentiles unles it be in this sence as it probably might be in S Prosper's time that Gentium Ecclesia signified the Christian Church in which the Iews were included yet being no considerable part of it they needed not be exprest Next as for the word Nations which he recurs to I would ask whether though those in Iudea were styled the Nation of the Iews yet whether those in dispersion at Rome were called a Nation or no or rather a Sect Thirdly let Gentium signifie of the Nations as he would have it let us see how Dr. H. hath advantaged his cause For if it be so then the words Gentium Ecclesiam sacrarunt they consecrated the Church of the Nations are to be applyed to all the Apostles there mention'd Now then since Nations as Dr. H. tells us here is Sure of Iews aswel as Gentiles the testimony must run thus Iames at Hierusalem consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Iohn at Ephesus consecrated the Church of Iews aswell as Gentiles Andrew the rest throughout all Asia consecrated the Church of the Iews aswell as Gentiles and the like of Peter Paul at Rome Thus Dr. H. thinking to stop one hole hath made other three quite destroyes the substance of his exclusive tenet while he went about to mend a circumstance Fourthly if he will not allow this signification of the word given allowed by himself as'applyed to S Peter S. Paul when it was his interest to be appliable to all the rest of those Apostles likewise let us see what an unreasonable beleef he exacts of his Readers to imagine that the word Gentium should dance from one signification to another as his fancy shall please to strike up a diverse tune Hence apply'd to S. Iames S Iohn it must be imagin'd to signify Iews onely because 't is against the interest of his tenet that they should open their mouths to convert a Gentile at Hierusalem and Ephesus But then S. Andrew the rest are not Apostles of the Circumcision so according to him must not preach to a Iew in Asia presently
that the greater part of them will be arrant fools First putting down a company of expressions totally disanulling S. Peter's Authority and immediately quoting for them 1. Tim. 3. 14. 15. Next when he is challenged of falsifying instead of showing any word there more then the poor monosyllable Come saying he onely mean't it was conclusible or deducible thence And lastly instead of concluding proving or deducing that Iurisdiction limiting sence from those words which at least was necessary onely saying the same words over again asking some questions to which he knew the answer long ago bidding his Answerer supply his turn prove telling us we dare not do not affirm what his own knowledge what his own eyes assure him we both dare do in this very present Controversy and then concluding all with an If built upon the former no doubt bred in his own head grounded upon his own fancy Is such an Adversary worth the losse of an hour's time to confute were it not that the Authority he hath got by a sleightly-connected Sermon enabling him to do some mischief amongst the more vulgar made it necessary to lay him open plainly to show how unsafe it is for them to let their Salvations rely in the least upon so incomparably weak a Controvertist THIRD PART Containing a Refute of Dr. H's second fundamentall Exception against the Pope's Authority from the pretended equall donation of the Keys to S. Peter Sect. 1. How Dr. H's Shuflingly avoids either to acknowledge or dâ—sacknowledge the notion of an Evidence given What he means by his Evidences and what is to be expected from Catholikes in managâ—ng a Wit-controversy concerning Scripture His weak attempt to clear himself of Prevarication Injuriousnes and Calumny objected MY 13. Section in Schism Disarm'd begun with putting down the true notion of an Evidence having already shown p. 17. that nothing but a perfect certainty sprung from such rigorous convincing proofs could rationally oblige the understanding to assent and that all assents sprung from that were originiz'd from passion Whence follows that the first Protestants could no way rationally relinquish the Authority Government of the former Church they were bred in conclude in their thoughts that her Doctrine was false her Government an usurpation unles moved by the said light of evident demonstrative Reasons that is unles they had grounds sufficient in their own nature to convince them that it was so and could not but be so For surely even in common prudence it had been the most rash action imaginable to hazard the most greeveus sin of Schism consequently an eternity of misery to their Souls upon probability onely How great a favour Dr. H. had done himself who though he begun first to write yet now Answ p. 50. l. 32. expresseth a great desire to be at an end of Controversie and how great a kindnes he had confer'd on S. W to have answer'd positively to these two points I or no to wit whether lesse then such a rigorous Evidence could iustify the renouncing an Authority possession so qualified and whether his pretended Evidences I or no were such I need not much declare The whole controversy depends upon these two hinges will quickly finde a decisive conclusion if these points were positively answer'd to vigorously pursued Now my notion of a Testimony Evidence Schism Disarm p. 88. was this that the testimony it self must be authentick beyond dispute and the words alledged so directly expressing the thing to be proved that they need no additions or explications to bring them home to the matter but are of themselves full ample clear such as the Alledger himself were he to expresse his thoughts in the present Controversy would make choice of to use Whether he likes this definition of a Testimony Evidence or no he is resolu'd wee shall not know He dares not be negative or say he dislikes it because what ever testimony falls short of this falls short likewise of proving that the thing must be and so concludes onely that it may be which being too weak a ground in the iudgment of every prudent Conscientious man to hazard his Soul upon as he must if he begin to Schismatize upon no better Grounds he saw it could turn to his disgrace if he deny'd the notion given or pretended that lesse Evidence would serve in a Controversy about Schism nor durst he bee affirmative or approve of it because he saw he had not produced one testimony in his whole book worth a straw if it were brought to that Test nor worthy to bestyled an Evidence Wherefore being in this perplexity and as the proverb is holding a Wolf by the ears he recurs to his old Prevarications and instead of approving or disapproving of my Description of an Evidence tells me Answ p. 58. what he meant by his own Evidences to wit that he takes Evidence in the familiar vulgar notion for a testimony to prove any Question of Fact either in the Affirmation or the nagative But what kinde of Testimonies these must be which can serve in such a concerning discourse whether such as I described heretofore manifesting that the thing must be or not be or probable ones inferring onely that his Affirmative or Negative may be or whether these Testimonies need be proofs at all but branches of accordance onely or spoken in agreement as almost all the Testimonies he hath hitherto produced were he defines nothing By his carriage in his book of Schism he seems to mean these latter onely nor do his words here exact more then onely a testimony not expressing any thing at all concerning the quality of this testimony whether the Authority of it must be valid or invalid clear or obscure expresse or dumbe entire or maim'd with an Ellipsis originally proving oâ— agreable onely set down right or corrupted falsified an Orthodox Fathers or an Arch-Heretick's all is one with Dr. H. still that testimony is one of his Vulgarly-Styl'd Evidences and so vulgar half-witted Souls will rely upon them in a Controversy importing no lesse then their eternall Salvation In the same place of Schism Disarm'd Dr. H. was charg'd with prevaricating from his pretended promise instead of bringing Evidence of his own solving our pretended ones and that this was to sustain a different part in the dispute he first undertook to wit the part of the Defendant for so we used ever to style him who solved objections He answers that the one possible way to testify any negative is to take a view of the places the Affirmers pretend and to shew that those places have no such force in them Obserue these canting words the one possible way so handsomly preparing for an evasion which though more likely to signify the onely possible way as Vnus is often taken for Solus in Latin yet he hath a glosse in readines to say he meant ' otherwise But because he puts not down the other
expressely put down in my words now repeated by him self to wit that S. Peter had in a peculiar manner the Holy Ghost and the necessary connexion of this with his higher Authority expressly disclaim'd in the place even now cited Thirdly after he had repeated my whole discourse he subjoyn's immediately here was one honest word the perhaps As if our Saviour's words out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh and those others of the Scripture that S. Peter converted three thousand by his first Sermon were all dishonest words But since I intended onely to give the Dr. some satisfaction of which knowing his humor I was not certain why was it not honester to expresse my self ambiguously then to cry a loud Certainy surely no doubt unquestionably irrefragably as Dr. H. does all over before his Testimonies whereas all is obscure uncertain falsified not a word in them sounding to the purpose as hath been shown all over this book It may be the Reader may accound Dr. H. the greater wit for using such confident and loud-crying expressions when there is so litle wooll but I hope he will thinke S. W. the honester man for speaking withim compasse Fourthly he sayes that the Dr. meaning himself may not be satisfy'd thence that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner to which he addes of his own falsifying invention or was designed head of the Apostles as if I had pretended this either as equivalent or necessarily consequent out of the former whereas he knows I absoluty disclaimed against him any such pretence This done without having afforded owne word of answer or sence he bids us farewell in these words I shall answer it no further then by repeating Good night good Dr. But to let the Reader see how much stronger my perhaps is than the Drs surely I will briefly put doun the import of this late proof ad hominem and 't is this that since out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks 't is probable that S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in his heart more abundantly or in a higher degree since he first exprest it 's interiour motions by speaking and speaking soe vigorously and powerfully Now then since in Mr. H's Grounds the receiving the holy Ghost seald the Commissions of the Apostles and finally performed the promise of their ruling and presiding in the Church whence he contended also that all had this promise equally performed that is according to him had equally the Holy Ghost lest one should exceed anoâ—her in Iurisdiction it follows unavoidably ad hominem it against him that if be probable S. Peter had the Holy Ghost in an higher degree it is probable likewise that he had a higher rule and presidencie in the Church performed to him The argument bearing this sence who sees not 't is Dr. H's task to let us knowe why this so early and vigorous pouring forth argued not a fuller measure of the Holy Ghost within what does he He calumniates me to bring this as a clâ—ar evidence putting the words clear evidence in other letters as if thay had bene mine falsifies my known pretence twice calls the word perhaps the one honest words says the Dr. may not be satisfie'd by the reason alledged that S. Peter had received the Holy Ghost in a more particular manner and then in stead of telling us why he may not be satisfie'd immediately concluding that he shall not answer it further than by repeating it Thus Dr. H's reason like some sorry creature taken tardy in a tale first mutters and stammers as if it would say something or were hand-bound with some bad excuse but seing it could make no coherence at length very honestly hands down it's head and sayes iust nothing The fourth proposition is And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost which he tells us here was sure no distinct argument of his But why it should not be as good and sole suffiâ—ient a proof as this that the fire was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he pedantizes it sate on every one of them which he called Answ p. 68. l. 3. an argument of somevalidity I had no ground in the world to imagin both of them equally impugning our tenet that is not at all For wee equally grant that each single Apostle had power giuen him to bind and loose or Authority in the Church which he without any ground will have signified by the division of this fire as wee do that they were all filled with the Holy Ghost The fifth and last proposition immediately follows the former and is this and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all that is all had equally the Holy Ghost and this is pretended as deduced out of the fourth saying that they were all full of it Schism Disarm p. 98. showd the weaknes of this arguing from fulnes to equality by the instances of our Saviour Barnabas who are both said in Scripture to be full of the Holy Ghost as also of the saints in heaven being full of glory though there were an inequality between them in those respects and by the parallell ridiculousnes of the plow man's silly argument who concluded alleggs equall and that none had more meat in it than another because all were full To take of these exceptions and strengthen his feeble argument the Dr. offers nothing though he braggs at the end of the Section that he hath attended me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely he tells us here p. 69 gentily that he is not concern'd to doubt but that they which are full of the Holy Ghost may have it unequally if by unequally be meant the inequality of divine endowments How he is concern'd to doubt it shall be seen presently in the meane time let us reflect on his other words and ask him what is meant by the Holy Ghosts abiding in the Souls of the faithfull or by what other way he imagins him to be there than by divine endowmeÌ„ts onely I hope he thinks not that the Holy Ghost is hypostatically united to them or incarnate in them An inequality then of divine endowments is all the inequa'ity which can be imagin'd in this matter and thefore if any inequality prejudice Dr. H's tenet he is concern'd to avoid this Now how much it concerns Dr. H's circumstances to avoid an inequality of the Holy Ghosts being in the Apostles is as plain as it is that it concerns him to say any thing to the question and not talk onely in the aire He is about to impugn S. Peter's higher Authority by the performance of the promise of Authority and Commission made finally as he thinks by the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them wherefore unles he prove that the Holy Ghost descended equally upon each he can never argue hence against the inequality of S. Peter's Authority pretended by us and so it avalis him nothing He saw this in his book of Schism where he
the Apocalypse that being come thither he brings another negative proof argues from plurality to equality again gives for his solution Grounds for all the Apostles to be call'd Peter falls to measure a wall in the Apocalypse to prove equality of power without proving first or knowing nay doubting himself whether it relate to power or no that hee omits to reply to those passages which show'd him baffled in his own argument and lastly when he hath done to let the Reader see he hath used his utmost here he praises this point as most important and brags that he hath attended us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and precisely whereas he left the main passage and all the circumstances that force was put in un attended and untouch't and most miserably shuffled about blunder'd quibbled in all the rest THE CONCLVDING SECTION Reason why the Disarmer proceded no further in laying open Dr. H's fault Objected Falsifications clear'd and some of them retorted upon the Objector An unparallell'd and evidently willfull one of the Drs presented to himself and his Friends in requitall Friendly counsel to the Dr at parting AND now understanding Reader what dos't thou expect further that I should lose my own ill employ'd time vex thy patience already cloy'd with laying open this Drs weaknesses false dealings through the rest of his book or rather dos't thou not complain how unnecessary so long a refute is to such a Trifler and candidly correct mee as some iudicious friends have already done that it had bin abundantly sufficient and as much as he deserved to gather together a Catalogue of his manifest absurdities and then leave him to the censure of iudicious ingenious lovers of truth reason I confesse in the tedious processe of this Reply seeing nothing worthy a man that is nothing which pretended a rigorous or rationall discourse I became wholly of their minde too yet I had such regard to the weaknes of the multitude of Readers that I still proceeded in laying open minutely the unparalleld sillines insincerity of their adored preaching Doctor and the tyranny of that consideration had transported me into farther inconveniencies so as to shew him constantly like himself to the very end of his long book had not I been partly urged partly necessitated to desist and my desistance warranted by these following reasons First that Wits Schollars who are the flower of Readers are deterr'd disenvited from reading books especially Controversies if they grow to any excessive bulk And to those that should read such it would be in a manner ungratefull when nothing is to be seen but the faults of a writer laid open which was the reason that to give some tincture of solidnes to my Reply so to take of the tediousnes from knowing Readers I have taken occasion to discusse some points as those concerning Possession the Churches power to binde to beleef the certainty of Tradition c. more largely than I was obliged out of any respect due to my Antagonist himself or his sleight way of writing Secondly I have given unexpected satisfaction before hand to more knowing persons by laying Grounds before my Reply which come home to the life of the question at least endeavor to clear it rationally which therefore I conceive would be more gratefull profitable to them and on the other side being supererogatory to the task of a Respondent might deserve to excuse some part of that which was ungratefull to them unprofitable nay all of it confes 't by Dr. H. himself as shall be seen to be unnecessary Thirdly I had acknowledg'd some beholdingnes to the Catholike Gentleman's letter so had drawn upon my self an engagement to vindicate it also against Dr. H's Reply By which mean's I had two books of his to refute as far as I proceeded to both which had I reply'd quite through it would have made too-large a volume Fourthly the B. of Derry had e're I had answer'd Dr. H's first part put out a refute to my Appendix to Schism Disarm'd which oblig'd me to leave some room in my already big book for him and to bestow on him some part of that my defensive task otherwise due intended to Dr. H. and so I had not room enough to prosecute all the less necessary trifles of that my long winded Adversary Fifthly the task it self of answering such kinde of sleight soul'd Writers was most tedious irksom to any one who pretends to ayms at Science nay most irrationall and senceles consisting in this that rigorous discourse the immediate evident connexion of terms that onely proper satisfaction to a reasonable Soul being neglected upon which our Tenor Rule of faith immediate Tradition is at least pretended to be built to leave this I say and to stand replying to every odd end of a worm-eaten Record or testimony which without the help of this Tradition can claim no originall Authority at all much less against it and for the most part is falsify'd unauthentick ambiguous in terms or non-cluding if it hap to be true truly-proposed besides many other weaknesses invalidating it which is to neglect sence for words and instead of reasoning from Grounds fall to quibbling in Sounds Sixthly even in pursving this testimony way I have shown to the eye of the Reader this Drs manner of writing so infinitely faulty weak so full fraught with falsifications paralogisms perverting both words sence of Authors omitting words most important for us adding others most important for himself suborning Arch-hereticks for true fathers building upon Testimonies fetch 't from those of his own side alledging places as for him concealing the words found to be directly against him shuffling a way the true point with a gentile slines begging or els mistaking the question all over as oft calumniating our tenets positions runing division upon a dow-bak'd If a long way without ever considering the if not Talking voluntarily to fro upon his own head in a preaching vein blundering things in themselves most clear with needles distinctiōs explications which he uses against their nature to involue confound recurring to dilating himself much in the generall terms so to avoid coming to the particular point contradicting himself frequently and in one point Nine or ten times flourishing all over with certainly surely irrrefragably infallibly unquestionably accordingly plainly manifestly demonstrably undoubtedly clearly expresly we know it is manifest id est perfectly unavoidably evidently innumerable such other expressions all sprung from his own fancy to give countenance to the Testimonies not from the Testimonies or any force of reason to make good those expressions to which add his sober sermon-phrases so oft repeated of no degree of truth no appearance of force I did in the simplicity of my heart verily beleeve I shall not deem it necessary to descend to any further proof His playing the Pedant all over in Greek to amuse the
that there is a thing call'd an Answer or account to H. T 's Appendix which confuted this forged manuscript writ by Dr. H though I briefly hinted here some exceptions found in it without taking notice of their pretended answer partly because I know by long experience that nothing but shuffling impertinences paralogisms and falsifications are to bee expected from that Authour and principally because I understood that the sayd Appendix is patroniz'd by the same learned pen that writ it and those Exceptions shown untouch't by the mock shirmish of his Adversary Thither I refer the Reader for compleat satisfaction where hee will see my BP more fully confuted and my present charge against the sleight Accountant most amply made good Sect. 5. How my Ld of Derry digresses from a Papall Authority to a Patriarchall that is from t who le question His prafest resolution not to return to it but upon conditions and such as hee is sure no Catholike can yeeld to His waving the whole scope of his Adversary's Discourse together with diverse impertinent non sencicall and unskilfull Replies MY Lord of Derry undertook to prove three things in his 6th Chapter first that the King Church of England had sufficient Authority to withdraw their obedience from the Roman Patriarch 2 ly that they had iust Grounds to do it and 3 ly that they did it with due moderation I objected that this was to shuffle away the whole question For whereas the question is of the Priviledge given by Christ to S. Peter and from him descended to the Pope's his successours that is whereas our Controversy is about a Papall Authority or that of the Head of God's Church held by us and by themselves formerly to bee of faith and of divine Institution hee leaves this to talk of a Patriarchall Authority not held as from Christ but of humane Institution By which sleight hee tacitly intimates that the Authority actually in force in England at the time of the Reformation and then renounced was onely Patriarchall not Papall which waves the main if not the whole charge and is plainly contradictory to the whole world's eyes at that time Now what excuse brings the Bishop for this fundamentall shuffling importing no less than the avoiding the whole question Hee tells us here p. 30. that when hee first undertook this subject hee coÌ„ceived the great strength of the Roman sampson did lie in his Patriarchate By which words if the Bp. pretends that hee intended to express himself finely I shall grant it but if hee sayes that hee intended to speak truly I have so good an opinion of those of his own party that I am confident the most partiall and simplest of them will bee too candid and too wise to beleeve him For how can it bee imagin'd that a Bp. and so well read a man as hee is accounted to bee should bee ignorant that the Reformers renounc't a Papall Authority and higher than Patriarchall and that a Papall Authority that is a Supremacy over the whole Church in Ecclesiasticall matters was held immediately before the Reformation or rejection of it Who knows not likewise that they stand accused by us of the fact of renouncing an Authority far higher than Patriarchall yet this Bp. undertaking that subject that is to vindicate his Church from Schism in renouncing that higher Authority pretends hee conceived that the great strength of the Roman sampson lay in his Patriarchate though hee knows the Patriarchate was held but of human that Papacy of divine Institution the Patriarchate limited to some particular part within God's Church the Papacy which they actually renounced held to bee universally extended and to have no other bounds or limits but God's Church the Papacy superior nay supreme the Patriarchate inferior and subordinate to the former This is the notion which both the former and present world nay themselves too had of the Papacy at least ere they rejected it which a man would think supperadds a great and manifold increase of strength above the other But the sincere Bp. thinks otherwise now though in his former book hee confesses the Pope had quitted the Patriarchall power that is pretended none for these last 600. years and here enlargeth it to a 1000. Which shows that Dr. H. and hee are the Simeon and Levy of the Protestant fraternity and have the same fundamentall faults common to both But now being taken tardy and caught running away from the question hee is well contented hee sayes to give over that subject to wit his disgression to the Patriarchate but yet not but upon two conditions wise ones you may bee sure Observe by the way Reader that though other disputants make account it is their duty and absolute obligation to speak to the point in hand in the Bp. 't is a courtesy and to bee condescended to conditionally 't is against his nature and inclination to hold to the question and therefore wee must bribe him to it 〈◊〉 sâ—bscribing to the bargain hee proposes The first condition hee requires ere hee will leave of rambling to a Patriarchate and come home to the question is that wee must not presume the Pope is a spirituall Monarch without proving it What hee means by spirituall Monarch I know not 'T is a word without sence till it bee explicated For either hee means by Monarch a Commander in whose breast all concernments of the subjects are put so that his will is a law to dispose of them as hee lists and then wee held not the Pope to bee such a Monarch for this however it bee call'd Monarch is indeed flat Tyranny or else hee means a Monarch is the ordinary chief Governour and such wee hold the Pope to bee in the Church and shall ever presume hee is so till his subjects who actually rebell'd against his Authority disprove it Wee hold on the Governours side your first Reformers were before their separation actually his subjects actually they deny'd their subjection and rose against his Government ' This actuall rising against him this very fact I say proves you Rebells his former long-enjoy'd possession stands a proof of his Right unles you evidence and demonstrate him an vsurper or though none yet that the Government ought to bee abolish't But the Bp. will not hold to the question unles wee will grant that when a subject rises against a former long possest Governour hee shall at pleasure call the Governour to account and oblige him to prove his title ere hee will acknowledge him and on the other side that the subject must bee freed from all obligation to give account of his rising against his Governour or from being bound to prove that the Authority hee rebell'd against was an usurpation and unjust Good sence but hard law His second condition ere hee will come to the question is that wee must not attempt to make Patriarchall priviledges to bee Royall Prerogatives what hee means by Royal Prerogatives I know not there being no determinate
broke from the former Church consisting of those Churches thus united according to the Essentialls and fundamentalls of a Church Now then after all this as evident as that two ad three make five to wave answering this true charge that they broke by this double dissent from all those Churches and to make as though they separated from the Court of Rome onely and to defend themselves as breaking onely from that Court is to say that none hold those two Principles but onely the Court of Rome which to speak moderately is perfect Impudence the most proper and characteristicall expression of this Bp's manner of writing but the blame is mine for had I perform'd those two powerfull conditions the Bishop had not thus â—huffled of the true charge nor avoided thus the whole question I shall desire the Reader to consider once again the true charge for otherwise it is impossible hee should iudge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of their Grounds for separation as likewise to reflect that though hee pretend here they had sufficient Grounds yet hee thinks it not safe to speak out to the point as I urged him heretofore nor tell us whether those Grounds of his exceptions bee demonstrative that is apt to infer with absolute necessity therefore the Authority was an vsurpation and not come from Christ or though come from Christ yet for those reasons to bee rejected nor dares hee confess that they are onely probable yet sufficient For if probable reasons were sufficient to abolish an Authority as an vsurpation held till those reasons appear'd to have been of Christ's Institution what Government in the world could stand Nor lastly that there is a middle sort of proof between demonstration and Probability that is above a may bee yet below a must bee which can convince sufficiently the understanding and oblige it to an assent contrary to it's former faith These points are of too hard digestion for verb â—ll souls and come so neer the first Principles that they would quickly end this and all Controversies should they come to bee perfectly scann'd Wherefore as before hee totally omitted to answer those words of mine which prest him to declare himself in that point so here constant to his Principles hee absolutely declines to inform us what kinde of proofs they must bee onely hee calls them Grounds sayes they are just and sufficient His pretended Grounds I reduce to three generall Heads some of them entrench upon Eternity conscience some urge onely temporall inconveniences Lastly some are of a middle nature and pretend to more knowledge of Right Those of the first sort are all meer falshoods and calumnies and equally competent for any Heretick in the world to object against the Church in a like occasion that is are no wayes proper or serviceable to his cause For may not any Heretick voluntarily object that the Church impos'd new Articles of faith upon him when hee had a mind to beleeve or hold nothing of faith but what agreed with his own fancy Might not hee complain of new creeds impos'd when the Church upon occasion of new emergent heresies added to her publick Professions some points of faith held so formerly which might distinguish her old friends from up start foes Might not hee complain of Perill of Idolatry as your Brother Puritans did for surplisses and your reform'd Communion-table when hee had a mind to deny that Christ was more than a man as did the Arians or to renounce any decent or rationall practice in God's Church might not hee pretend that all Hereticks and Schismaticks in the world were good Christians and that the Church was tyrannicall in holding them for excommunicate Might not hee shuffle together faith with opinions and alledge falsly as you doe here you were forced to approve the Pope's rebellion against generall Councils and taking Oaths to maintain vsurpation of the Pope whenas you know and confess your self one may bee of our Church and yet neither hold the Pope above the Council nor accept of such Oaths Iust vindic p. 200. Again all these Exceptions you produce are the very points you pretend to dispute against us wherefore it depends upon the goodnes of your reasons whether those Articles pretended to bee new were indeed such and endangering Idolatry or no in iudging which concerning points Fancy must bee allow'd to pass no verdict onely rigour of reason that is demonstration can bee presumed sufficient to render points held formely by themselves and their immediate forefathers as of faith sacred and Christ's doctrine to bee obnoxious to Exceptions of new false and Idolatrous Yet nothing is more evident than that you have no such reasons for our Drs have vindicated these very points against your Reformers in such a manner that to speak much within compass the unpassionate part of the world never imagin'd you have carried the cause clearly and conclucluded decisively against us which is an Evidence that you have not evidenced against us nor demonstrated the counter Authority upon which you build your contrary tenet To omit that the Evidence of our Churches Authority hath been pretended by our late Controvertists and as yet unreply'd upon by your party nay that your own best writers confess you have nothing but proâ—ability wheron to Ground your faith All which shows the vanity of your pretended fear of Idolatry and new points of faith and coÌ„cludes your breach temerarious and irrationall And as for your fear of separating from the Communion of three parts of that which you call Christendome it shall bee shown hereafter Sect. 10 from your own side that you had ten times more Communion even with that in materiall points when you were in our Church than you can pretend to have had since His second sort of Grounds are those which relate to temporall inconveniences and injuries to the civill state by reason of the Pope's pretended encroachments against all which hee hath told us before p. 21. that diverse Catholike countries have laws in force that is that men may remain Catholiks without holding nay resisting those pretended encroachments and tells us here p. 36. that al other Catholike countries maintain their priviledges inviolated Yet these pretended inconveniences hee huddles together in big terms and puts them for a ground of their separation from our Church in which Church yet hee confesses they might have continued still in union and have stood out against them Now whether many of these were Abuses or just Rights hee knows is disputable between canoÌ„ and civil Lawyers of which kinde of CoÌ„troversy I neither think my self nor the Bp. a competent iudge since this kind of learning is not our proper profession Yet hee will needs have mee engage into such questions nothing concerning our present quarell which is about a point of faith not a point of law Our question is whether these Exceptions of his were sufficient Grounds of renouncing the Authority it self and separating from the former Church That they
common concerns of the Church Or without this how is it possible there should bee any Vnity of Government or a Church that is a thing connected united or made one by Order or by Vnity of Government The Church is God's Family can that bee calld a Family where mutually independent persons live in severall rooms of the house that is are many families without any Master or Mistress of the house or some person or persons higher than the rest by subordination to whom they become united or made one The Church is a City whose Vnity is in it self can that bee calld a City where each Master of a family is supreme that is where there are an hundred distinct supremes which stand aloof from one another without any Colligation of themselves under the notion of Governed by which means those many otherwise wholes become now parts and make up one whole which is done by submitting to some superiour Magistrate or Magistrates The Church is a Christian Common-wealth can there bee a Common-wealth which can bèe calld one if every City and town have a particular supreme Governour of it's own without owing deference to any superiour or superiours Does not common sence inform us that in this cause each City is a particular that is one compleat self bounded Common-wealth that is that those many Cities are more ones that is many CoÌ„mon-wealths Wherefore either show us some one standing ordinary form of Magistracy or Government to which all Christendome ought to submit and some Magistrate or Magistrates Governour or Governours to whom they owe a constant obedience which is impossible in your Grounds or else acknowledge plainly that you have left no Vnity of Government in God's Church at all but have unravell'd all the frame and disannull'd all the Being of a Church which consisted essentially in Order and made that parts of it have no more connexion or Vnity than a rope of sand Yet as long as these pittifull shufflers can but tell the abused Reader in generall terms that they acknowledge the discipline left by Christ and his Apostles they make account their adherents will renounce both their eyes and common sence and bee content to follow hood-wintk't after the empty tinkling sound of these hollow and nothing signifying phrases Perhaps the Bp. will reply that a generall Council is acknowledg'd by them as of obligatory Authority and that therefore there is yet a means left for Vnity of Government in the whole Church Vpon which answer the good Protestant Reader thinks them humble and reasonable men But this is indeed the greatest mockery that can bee invented For first they give us no certain Rule to know which is a generall Council which not that is who are to bee call'd to that Council who not for once taking away a certain Rule of faith there is no certainty who are Hereticks that is men not to bee call'd to a Council as to sit in it and vote who good Catholiks that is to bee call'd thither to sit and vote there Next generall Councils being onely call'd upon extremities if the Churche's Vnity in Government consist onely in them it follows that the Church hath actually no Vnity of Government but just at that pinch when a generall Council is to bee call'd that is it is never a Church but at that happy time onely when it is most unhappy But the greatest piece of foolery is that they having renounc't an actuall standing Authority pretend to show their goodnes a readines to submit to the Authority of a generall Council which themselves will acknowledge with the next breath impossible to bee had that is they profess themselves very humbly and heartily ready though they have renounc't one Government yet to submit to another which can never bee and so is never likely to trouble or controll them Is not this a piece of hollow hearted humility Yet that such Councils as they will daign to call generall are held by them impossible Dr. H. tells us Reply p. 30. in those words generall Councils are now morally impossible to bee had the Christian world being under so many Empires and divided into so many CoÌ„munions that it is not visible to the eye of man how they should bee regularly assembled Here Reader thou seest all nâ—y discourse asserted to wit that God's Church as they have form'd it is so divided into disparate parts that as there is no Vnity of Government in it now for if there were there would bee also a means to assemble a generall Council so it is impossible there should bee any for the future according to their Grounds till some one temporall Governour come to Lord it ovâ—r the whole or greatest part of the Christian world which in all likelihood will bee never Consider again their candour they have renounc't the former notion of God's Church and his Authority whose proper office it was to call a generall Council of that whole Church as hee did often and then profess a willingnes to submit to such a Council or a Representative of their new notion'd Church but with the next breath lament alas that such a generall Council or Representative cannot possibly bee had after themselves had taken order to hinder all means of having it and so they are free and need obey no body How much better and stronger were it argued thus that since it is most irrationall and unbeseeming God's Providence that his Church should bee destitute of a means to remedy her extremities that is of means to gather a generall Council and that there was a means to doe this before you rejected the Pope's Authority and by your own Confession no possibility of it since that therefore you have renounced the right notion of a Church and the right Government of that Church This then is our totall charge against you that you have broke the Vnity of the former Church and not of the Court onely as you trifle it which you were in by renouncing those Principles in which consisted her Vnity both in Faith and Government and to which Principles the whole Church you broke from consented Thus far the matter of fact evidences Nor is it less evident that you have substituted no certain Rule of faith nor any certain or particular form of Government which can ground an Vnity to your new fashion'd Church in either respect but that you have turn'd Evidence of Authority the onely certain Rule and Root of faith into a drowsy probability and by consequence faith thus grounded into Opinion as likewise that you have turn'd the former Government of the Church into a perfect Anarchy there being no colligation or Vnity of the whole together ty any by of Government and that had not God's mercy been above your malice you had made the Church our Hierusalem which is built as a City at Vnity with it self that is which hath an Vnity of Government an heap of stones without connexion without order and consequently without being which consisted
according to their Grounds can be sayd to pray for us at all in particular on Good friday or for our conversion as he forget-full of his own tenet affirms Their prayer is this Mercifull god who hast made all men and hatest nothing that thou hast made nor wouldest the death of a Sinner but rather that he should be converted and live have mercy upon all Iews Turks Infidells and Hereticks c. Fetch them home to thy flock that they may be saved c. I ask now under which of these heads does he place Papists when he pretends their cōversion is here pray'd for in particular Vnder that of Hereticks How can this stand with his Principles who acknowledges ours a true Church that is not hereticall and lately told us as a point of his Churches Moderation that she forbears to censure others Again they grant us to be of Christ's flock already in a capacy to be saved whereas those they pray for here are supposed reducible to Christ's flock that is not yet of it and by being thus reduced capable of Salvation that is incapable of it before they be thus reduced none of these therefore are competent to us nor are we prayed for there as Hereticks if his own Grounds his own pretended Moderation are to be held to by himself Much less will he say we are pray'd for there under the notion of Iews Turcks or Infidels for this were to censure us worse nor was ever pretended by Protestants It follows then that our conversion in particular is not there pray'd for at all but that there is such a pittifull dissonancy between the pretended Church of England's doctrine her practice that her greatest Bp's Doctors cannot make sence of one related to the other Nay more since hee culls out this Good friday prayer for the speciall externall work of their charity towards us and that this cannot concern us at all without a self contradiction it follows that their other externall works argue no charity at all towards us And this is the great inward charity the Bp. brags of as a proof of their due Moderation He adds that we excommunicate them once a year that is the day before Good-friday I reply that to expect a Church should not excommunicate those whom she holds to be Schismaticks and Hereticks is at once to be ignorant of the Churches constant practice and the common Principles of Government It being equally evident that the Church in all ages tooke this course with obstinate Adversaries of faith as it is that Society in the world can subsist without putting a distinction and separating avowed enemies and Rebels from true subjets friends If then they hold us Hereticks and unles they hold us such they do not pray for us in particular as is pretended they ought in all reason to excommunicate as indeed sometimes they did some particular Catholikes in their Churches though not all our Church in generall their new started congregation was conscious to herself that she had no such Authority which made her also instead of those words in our Good-friday prayer ad sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam revocare digneris recall them to our holy Mother the Catholike Apostolike Church vary the grave and too authoritative phrase too loud alas for her as taken in contra distinction to us into that dwindling puling puritanicall expressions of one flock the rem nant of the true Israelites one fold under one Shepheard c. equally pretendable if taken alone by Quakers as by them since they include no visible Marks in their notion which can satisfy us of any distinction between the one the other The third proof of their Moderation is that they added nothing but took away onely from the former doctrines of the Church which he expresses by saying they pluck up the weeds but retain all the plants of saving truths I answer'd that to take away goodnes is the greatest evill c. He replies that he spake of taking away errors No my L d this was not the intent of your discourse there both because you pretended there to prove something whereas I conceive to rely on onely the cheap saying that all is erroneous you tooke away proves nothing but is a meere self supposition as also because it is not a proof of Moderation to take away errors but a rigorously requisite act of Iustice Your intent then was to show the Moderation in your method of proceeding which you pretended all the way long to have been that you added no new thing but onely took away something of the old This I glanc't at as a fond and idle pretence since till you prove evidently and demonstrably from your new Rule of faith that the former of immediate Tradition which asserted those points denied by you did there in erre the presumption stands against you that it was Christ's doctrine which you maimed by thus detracting from it or if you suppose gratis that 't was not Christ's doctrine but errors falshoods then it is not proper to call it Moderation but rather an act of necessary charity to root it out I know it is an easy matter to call all weeds which your nice stomachs cannot digest but if that point of immediate Tradition renounced by you which onely could ascertain us that there was any such thing as Christ or God's word be a weed I wonder what can deserve to be called a flower What he vapours of holding what the primitive fathers iudged necessary and now Catholike Church does is an emptie brag vanishes into smoak by it self since as shall shortly bee shown their Grounds can never determin what is the Catholike or universall Church In order to the same proof of his Moderation I likewise answered that he who positively denies ever adds the contrary to what he takes away and that he who makes it an Article that there is no Purgatory no mass no prayer to Saints has as many Articles as he who holds the contrary He replies that he knows the contrary instancing that they neither hold it an Article of faith that there is a Purgatory nor that there is none I ask what kinde of things are their thirty nine Articles Are they of faith or opinions onely I conceive his Lp. will not say they are meere opinions but contra-distinctive of the Protestant faith from ours at least the good simple Ministers were made beleeve so when they swore to maintain them and unles they had certainty as strongly grounded as divine beleef for those points or Articles how could they in reason reject the cōtrary tenets which they held by divine beleef Now the 22. Article defines the negative to Purgatory three other points of our doctrine yet this ill-tutour'd Child tells his old crasy mother the Church of England that she lies that he knows the contrary Now his reason is better then his position 't is this because a negative cannot be
an Article of faith So that he would not have held it of faith against the Manichees that there are not two God's because the proposition is negative nor that the Divells shall not be saved nor the Saints in Heaven damn'd nor that there is no Salvation but through Iesus-Christ all these by the Bishop's Logick must cease to be Articles of faith and become indifferent and unconcerning opinions because they are all negatives After this he talks ramblingly again as his custome is of Theologicall opinions indifferent opinions c. and then on his own kinde word assures us that these points are such and so wipes his hands of them His last proof of their Moderation is their preparation of minde to beleeve practice what ever the Catholike Church even of this present age doth universally beleeve practice Proofs should be visible known and he brings us here for a proof a thing hid in the dark hole of their own breasts nor ever likely to come to light but by their own sayings onely all other Symptoms standing in opposition to it But the greatest foolery is that as I told him they first say there is no universall Church or if any indeterminate so that no body can tell which it is and then make a hollow-hearted profession of a readines to beleeve it and conclude themselves moderate Reformers My Ld replies that then they have renounced their creed the badge of their Christianitie I answer we doubt not but they have and that as they hold onely the word Church and not the thing so they hold onely the word the creed and not the sence of it both in that and what other Articles their fancie pleases Is it not then wisely argued to think to confute us by bringing us to this absurditie as he imagins that then they have renounced their creed whereas 't is our known tenet which we hold as undoubtedly as we do that they are out of the Church The next absurditie he brings me to upon this account is that then they have renounc't their reason also As little can we doubt of this as of the former having seen lately how you deny'd the first Principles and common sense almost in every particular of this discourse and even this present maner of arguing testifies how little reason your bad cause will allow you the use of But how proves he that then they must have lost their reason Thus for if there be many particular Churches wherefore not one universall Church whereof Christ is the Head and King Very good my Ld but if you give us no certain Rule to know what congregations are to be truly accounted Churches and which not such but hereticall and show us no some common ty of ordinary Government in the Church how will you make up of them one universall Church which may bee known for such This is the thing we object as you well know that you give us no such Rule to know a true Church by This is the reason why we affirm you deny an universall Church because you deny all Grounds which can establish such a Church As for what I alledged that if they say there is a Catholike Church 't is indetermin'd that is none knows which it is He answers first that then 't is all one as if it were not Very true for if there be no determinate one there is none at least to us Next that this is a calumny to say they know not determinately which this Church is Let us examine whether it be or no. Two things are requisite to the notion of an universall or Catholike Church One that the particular companies which compound it be indeed true Churches that is consisting of true beleevers and not hereticall Congregations without certain knowledge of which none can possibly know which is the universall Church made up of them The other that these particular Congregations of true beleevers cling together by mean's of order into one entire company to be called when thus united one universall Church For the first I appeal to any candid learned Protestant whether he ever in his life knew any of their Authors who gives us a positive Catalogue of which particular Congregations are to he held for true Churches and a part of the universall which no but to be excluded from it as hereticall or whether himself can stand to it positively upon Grounds given agreed upon by them that such such a Congregation is without the verge of the universall Church such with in it My self have lived in circumstances to be aswell acquainted with their doctrine as most men are and I profess sincerely were my life at stake onely redeemable by the resolving this question I could not determin absolutely upon any Grounds constantly acknowledg'd by them whether Presbyterians Anabaptists or Quakers are to be excluded from the universall Church or no. And if we cannot determin of sects so neer at hand though prest to it by our conversation carriage to declare express our selves distinctively much lesse can we expect it in order to the Armenians Ethiopians Iacobites with whose customes and tenets we are so litle acquainted But alas how vain is it to expect from Protestants such a distinctivenes of true beleevers from false who have no Grounds to make such a distinction For what Principles have they to character a true beleever Is it to acknowledge the letter of the Scripture sufficient All Hereticks in the world almost own this Arians Socinians who deny Christ's divinity most of all Is it the true sence of it how shall they agree in this without some certain mean's or Rule to interpret it make them agree Must the common doctrine of the universall Church interpret it This is the very thing we are in quest of and till wee know what particular Congregations are to bee held true Churches know not yet which it is Must consent of fathers They have no Authority but from the Church in which they lived and as declarers of her doctrine unles therefore we have some Rule to conclude antecedently that the Church whose doctrine they taught was the true Church we are still ignorant whether they be true fathers and to be beleeved or no. Is it the private Spirit The most frantick Enthusiasts then have an equall pretence Is it private reason In steps the Socinian and indeed all heresies in the world for every one hath a private reason of his own and can use it to his power in interpreting Scripture But my L d of Derry seems to drive another way affirming here p. 43. that he knows no other necessary Articles of faith but the Apostles creed though other Protestant Authors affirm more This then according to him must be the fundamentall Rule of faith and the Touch stone to try who are true beleevers who not The Puritans therefore who deny'd one of those Articles to wit Ghrists descent into Hell must be excluded quite from the universall
our charge of their Schismaticall breach is will winnow them the Rule of faith the voice of the Church or immediate Tradition will winnow or rather Christ hath winnow'd them by it having already told them that if they hear not the Church they are to be esteemed no better than Heathens Publicans Since then 't is evident out of the terms that you heard not the Church for your nâ—w fangled Reformations nor Ground those tenets upon the voice of the Church nay according to your Grounds have left no Church nor common suprem Government in the Church to hear it follows that you have indeed winnow'd your selves from amongst the wheat of Christians and are as perfect chaff I mean those who have voluntarily broken Church Communion as Publicans Heathens Now to show how empty a brag it is that they hold Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee to omit their no Communion in Government already spoken of Sect. 6. let us see what Communion they have with the Greek Church in tenets by the numerosity of which they hope for great advantages and whether the Protestants or wee approach nearer them in more points held equally by both I will collect therefore out of one of their own side Alexander Ross the tenets of the present Greek Church in which they agree with us though in his manner of expressing our tenet hee sometimes wrongs us both The Greeks place saith hee much of their deuotion in the worship of the Virgin Mary and of painted Images in the intercession prayers help and merits of the saints which they invocate in their Temples They place Iustification not in faith but in works The sacrifice of the Mass is used for the quick and the dead They beleeve there is a third place between that of the blessed and the damned where they remain who deferr'd repentance till the end of their life If this place bee not Purgatory adds Ross I know not what it is nor what the souls do there View of all Religions p. 489. And afterwards p. 490. They beleeve that the souls of the dead are better'd by the prayers of the living They are no less for the Churches Authority and Traditions than Roman Catholikes bee when the Sacrament is carried through the Temple the People by bowing themselves adore it and falling on their knees kiss the earth In all these main points if candidly represented they agree with us and differ from Protestants Other things hee mentions indeed in which they differ from us both as in denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost not using Confirmation observing the Iewish Sabbath with the L d' s day c. As also some practises not touching faith in which they hold with the Protestants not with us as in administring the Sacrament in both kinds using leauened bread in the Sacrament Priests marriage there is no one point produced by him which our Church looks upon as a point of faith in which they dissent from us and consent with the Protestants except that one of denying the Pope's Supremacy for their onely not using Extreme-Vnction which hee intimates signifies not that they hold it unlawfull or deny it Iudge then candid Protestant Reader of they Bp ' s sincerity who brags of his holding Communion with thrice as many Christians as wee do whereas if wee come to examin particulars they neither communicate in one common Government one common Rule of faith if wee may trust this Authour of their own side since if the Greeks hold the Authority of the Church and Traditions as much as Catholikes do as hee sayes they must hold it as their Rule of faith for so Catholikes hold it nor yet in any one materiall point in opposition to us save onely in denying the Pope's Supremacy And how more moderate they are even in this than the greatest part of if not all Protestants may bee learned from the Bp ' s mistaken testimony at the end of this Section as also from Nilus an avowed writer of theirs for the Greek Church against the Latine and one of the gravest Bp ' s and Authours of that party who shuts up his book concerning the Pope's Primacy in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The summe is this As long as the Pope preserves order and stands with truth hee is not removed from the first and his proper Principality and hee is the Head of the Church and chief Bishop and the successour of Peter and of the rest of the Apostles and it behooves all men to obey him and there is nothing which can detract from the honour due to him but if when hee hath once strayed from the Truth hee will not return to it hee will bee liable to the punishment of the damned Where the Reader will easily judge whether the former words sound more incliningly to the Catholike or the Protestant tenet and as for the latter words But if c. There is no Catholike but will say the same Thus much then for my L d of Derry's Communion with the Eastern Church And as for his Communion with the Southern Northern Western Churches which hee thunders out so boldly as if all the world were on his side and of his Religion if examin'd 't is no better than the former sence his side denies immediate Tradition of forefathers or the living voice of the present Church to bee the Rule of faith which is to the Roman Church the fundamentall of fundamentalls Nor has hee any other Rule of faith that is a plain and certain method of interpreting Scripture common to him and his weakly relâ—ted Brethren so that if they hit sometimes in some points 't is but as the Planets whichare ever wandring hap now and then to have conjunctions which hold not long but pursving their unconstant course decline and vary from one another by degrees and are at length crost by diacentricall oppositions The rest of this paragraph insists again upon his often answer'd saying that the creed contains all necessary points which is grounded onely upon his falsifying the Council of Ephesus as hath been shown heretofore To my many former replies vnto this pretence I add onely this that either it is a necessary point to believe there is such a thing as God's written word or the Scripture or not If not then why do the Protestants challenge it for their Rule of faith Is not the Ground of all faith a necessary point But if it bee a necessary point then all necessary points are not in the Apostles creed for there is no news there of the Scripture nor is it known how much thereof was written when the Apostles made their creed what hee adds of our having chaÌ„ged from our Ancestors in opinions either hee means by opinions points of faith held so by us and then 't is calumny and is to be solidly proued not barely said But if hee mean School opinions what hurt is done that those things should be changed which are in their
own nature changeable Hee imagins that Dr. Field hath prou'd some thing against us in this point and in answer shall imagin that those of ours who have reply'd to his toyes have disproved what hee is pretended to have proved nor am I further concern'd unles the Bp. had produced some weighty particular out of him which yet wanted answering as hee brings none at all After this hee will needs prove the Council of Trent not to have been a Generall one His exceptions that the summons were not generall that the foure Protopatriarchs were not present by themselves nor their deputies that there were not some present from the greater parts of all Christian Provinces are already shown to bee frivolous impertinent till hee gives us some certain determinate notion of Church and some certain Rule to know what sects in particular are of it what excluded as I have already manifested his Ground could give none For otherwise those who are excluded from or are not of the Church have no right to be Summon'd thither unles to bee call'd to the Barr as Delinquents nor to sit there nor are to be accounted Christians and so the summons may bee Generall all may bee there that should be there and some may bee present from the greater part of all Christian Provinces notwithstanding the neglect or absence of these aliens Hee ought then first put Grounds who are good Christians ought to bee call'd who not ere hee can alledge their not being call'd as a prejudice to the Council Our Grounds why it was generall are these The onely certain Rule of faith and by consequence root of Christianity which can secure us of God's word or any thing else is the immediate delivery or Tradition of forefathers Those therefore onely those who adhere to this root are to bee held truly Christians of the Church those who broke from it any time as did the Protestants professedly the Greeks the rest as evidently when they began to differ from us in any point are not properly Christians nor of the Church therefore a representative of the Church or Council is intire universall Generall though those latter who are not of the Church bee neither call'd Summon'd nor present provided those others who adhere to this root of faith and so are indeed Christians or adherers to Christ's law be Summon'd admitted But such was our Council of Trent therefore it was Generall Now to disprove this Council to bee Generall if hee would go to work solidly the Bp. should first alledge that it was not a sufficient representative of the whole Church which must bee done by manifesting definitely and satisfactorily who in particular are of the Church who not nor can this bee performed otherwise than by showing some Rule root of faith Christianity better qualify'd to bee such that is more certain more plain than this which may distinguish those who are of the Church from those who are not of it or else to convince that the Greeks Protestants Lutherans c. When they began to differ from the Roman innovated not but were found adhering to that immediate delivery otherwise they must confess that all were Summon'd that ought to have been Summon'd all were there or might have been there who ought to have been there and so the Council was Generall Till this bee done all his big worded pretences of the absence of the whole Provinces of the greater part of Christendome want of due summons fewnes of the members present that the Greeks are not known Rebells c. are convinc't to bee but voluntary talk as is indeed almost all this Treatise this being his peculiar manner of discoursing more fit for old wives Gossips at their frivolous meetings then for a Bp. and Controvertist handling matters of faith Hee sayes that the Greeks though Hereticks should have been lawfully heard condemned in a generall Council What needed hearing when themselves in the face of the whole world publikely confessed maintained avowed their imputed fault Condemned they were by generall Councils heretofore though the Bp's particular faculty of saying what hee lists without a word of proof will not allow them to bee such nor yet give us some certain way to know which Councils are such Or had it been an acknowledg'd generall Council and they heard condemned there still the B p. had an evasion in lavender hee laid up in store this reserve of words following that they were never heard or tried or condemned of heresy by any Council or person that had Iurisdiction over them and then hee is secure by talking boldy proving nothing His saying that though they were Hereticks yet they of all others ought especially to have been Summon'd signifies thus much that it is more necessary to a generall Council that Hereticks bee call'd thither than that Orthodox fathers bee so A substantiall peece of sence worthy consideration I brought a similitude of a Parliament that known and condemned Rebells need not bee call'd hee will needs have it run on four feet prosecutes it terribly some of his best trifles I shall reckon up First hee saies the Pope hath not that Authority over a generall Council as a King hath over a Parliament I answer I am so plain a man that I understand not what the Authority of King or Parliament either taken singly or one in order to the other signifies some Kings have more some less Authority so have Parliaments witness those of England France To expect then I should know â—ow great the Authority of King or Parliament is by naming onely the common words is to expect that one should know how long a country is by naming it a country or how big a mountain is by barely calling it a mountain That these have some great bignes and those some great Authority I know by their common names but how great I know not Words my Ld may serve you to give whose cause will not bear sence but they must not serve mee to take Secondly that the Greek Patriarchs are not known condemned Rebells Answer this is onely said again not prou'd and so 't is sufficient to reply that they who call'd the Council all in the Council held them so Again the errors which they publikely maintain'd have been condemned by Councils for the most part some of their own party being present Now why those who publikly profess those Errours should need a further calling to triall or why they are not known Rebells is the B p' s task to inform us Thirdly he sayes that the least Parliament in England had more members then the Council of Trent They were therefore graver and more choice persons The Church summons not parish-priests out of every great town as the common wealth doth two Burgesses out of every corporation Again what was it matters not but might not there bee a Parliament of England without having the fifth part of the members found
Rome would make which more more evidences that the acknowledgment of the Popes iust power was retained by the Greeks and encroachments upon their Liberties onely deny'd which the French Church intended to imitate Now 〈◊〉 cannot bee pretended with any shame that Gerson and the french Church mean't to disacknowledge the Pope's iust power as Head of the Church nor will Gersons words even now cited let it bee pretended for then without any perhaps not onely some as hee doubts but all in the Court of Rome would most certainly have contradicted it Their consideration then being parallell to that of the Greeks as the Bp. grants it follow'd that they acknowledg'd the Pope's Authority though they passively remain'd separate rather than humour a demand which they deem'd irrationall Thus the Bishop first cited a testimony against himself as was shown in Schism Disarm'd and would excuse it by bringing three or four proofs each of which is against himself also so that as hee begun like a Bowler hee ends like one of those Artificers who going to mend one hole use to make other three THE CONCLVSION The Controuersy between us is rationally and plainly summ'd up in these few Aphorisms 1. THat whatsoever the Extent of the Pope's Authority bee or bee not yet 't is cl ar that all Roman-Catholikes that is all Communicants with the Church of Rome or Papists as they call them hold the substance of the Pope's Authority that is hold the Pope to bee Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour in God's Church This is euident out of the very terms since to acknowledge the Papall Authority is to bee a Papist or a Communicant with the Church of Rome 2. The holding or acknowledging this Authority is to all that hold it that is to the whole Church of Rome or to all those particular Churches united with Rome a Principle of Vnity of Government This is plain likewise out of the terms since an acknowledgment of one Supreme Governour either in Secular or Spirituall affairs is the Ground which establishes those acknowledgers in submission to that one Government that is 't is to them a Principle of Vnity in Government 3. 'T is euident and acknowledg'd that whateuer some Catholikes hold besides or not hold yet all those Churches in Communion with the Churches of Rome hold firmly that whatsoever the living voice of the present Church that is of Pastours and Fathers of Famâ—lies shall unanimously conspire to teach and deliuer Learners and Children to have been recieued from their immediate fathers as taught by Christ and his Apostles is to bee undoubtedly held as indeed taught by them that is is to bee held as a point of faith and that the voice of the present Church thus deliuering is infallible that is that this deliuery from immediate forefathers as from theirs as from Christ is an infallible and certain Rule of faith that is is a Principle of Vnity in faith This to bee the tenet of all these Churches in Communion with Rome both sides acknowledge and is Evident hence that the Body made up of these Churches ever cast out from themselves all that did innouate against this tenure 4. 'T is manifest that all the Churches in Communion with Rome equally held at the time of the Protestant Reformation in K. Henry's dayes these two Principles as they do now that is the substance of the Pope's Authority or that hee is Supreme in God's Church and that the living voice of the present Church delivering as aboue said is the infallible Rule of faith This is manifested by our Aduersaries impugning the former Churches as holding Tradition and the Pope's Headship nor was it ever pretended by Friend or Foe that either those Churches held not those tenets then or that they have renounc't them since 5. The Church of England immediately before the Reformation was one of those Churches which held Communion with Rome as all the world grants and consequently held with the rest these two former tenets prou'd to have been the Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 6. That Body of Christians or that Christian Common-wealth consisting of the then-Church of England and other Churches in Communion with Rome holding Christ's law upon the sayd tenure of immediate Tradition and submitting to the Ecclesiasticall Supremacy of the Pope was a true and reall Church This is manifest by our very Adversaries acknowledgment who grant the now Church of Rome even without their Church to bee a true and reall one though holding the same Principles of Vnity both in faith and Government 7. That Body consisting of the then Church of England and her other fellow communicants with Rome was united or made one by means of these two Principles of Vnity For the undoubted acknowledgment of one common Rule of faith to bee certain is in it's own nature apt to unite those acknowledger's in faith that is to unite them as faithfull and consequently in all other actions springing from faith And the undoubted acknowledgment of one Supreme Ecclesiasticall Governour gave these acknowledgers an Ecclesiasticall Vnity or Church-communion under the notion of Governed or subjects of an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth Now nothing can more neerly touch a Church than the Rules of faith and Government especially if the Government bee of faith and recieved upon it's Rule Seeing then these principles gave them some Vnity and Communion as Faithfull and as belonging to an Ecclesiasticall Commonwealth it must necessarily bee Church Vnity and Comunion which it gave them 8. The Protestant Reformers renoun'ct both these Principles This is undeniably evident since they left of to hold the Popes Supreme power to act in Ecclesiasticall affairs and also to hold diverse points which the former Church immediately before the breach had recieved from immediate Pastours fathers as from Christ 9. Hence follows unavoidably that those Reformers in renouncing those two Principles did the fact of breaking Church Communion or Schismatizing This is demonstrably consequent from the two last Paragraphs where 't is proved that those two Principles made Church Communion that is caused Vnity in that Body which themselves acknowledge a true Church as also that they renounced or broke those Principles therefore they broke that which united the Church therefore they broke the Vnity of the Church or Schismatiz'd 10. This renouncing those two Principles of Ecclesiasticall Communion prou'd to have been an actuall breach of Church Vnity was antecedent to the Pope's excommunicating the Protestants and his commanding Catholikes to abstain from their Communion This is known and acknowledg'd by all the world nor till they were Protestants by renouncing those Principles could they bee excommunicated as Protestants 11. This actuall breach of Church Vnity in K. Henry's E d the 6th's and the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's reign could not bee imputable to the subsequent Excommunication as to it's cause 'T is plain since the effect cannot bee before the cause 12. Those subsequent Excommunications caused not the actuall breach or
this case where the point is demonstrable and of highest concern no reason meerly probable how strongly soever it bee such can convince the understanding that the Contrary was better to bee done but onely a manifest and rigorous demonstration For though in the commoner sort of humane actions an high Probability that the thing is in it self better bee sufficient for action yet there are some things of a nature so manifest to all Mankind to bee universally good that nothing but rigorous Evidence can bee pretended a Ground sufficient to oppose them For example that Parents are to bee honored that Government is to bee in the world that Vnity of Government is to bee kept up in God's Church that there ought to bee certain Grounds for faith and such like Which since on the one side they are such as are in their own nature demonstrable and indeed self evident on the other so universally beneficiall and consequently an universall harm or rather a deluge of inconveniences and mischief break in if the Acter against these should hap to bee in the wrong hee is therefore bound in these cases not to act till hee sees the utmost that is to bee seen concerning such affairs but affairs of this nature are demonstrable or rather self evident as is said on the one side therefore hee ought not to act unles hee could see perfect demonstration that 't is better to do the other Wherefore it being evidenced most manifestly in the 6th Section of this Vindication of my Appendix that this fact of theirs left neither Certain Ground of faith nor Vnity of Government in God's Church nothing but a perfect and rigorous demonstration could bee able to convince the understanding that 't was better to â—ct 20. The Protestants produce no such demonstration that â—was better to act in this case For they never clos'd with severe demonstration in any of their writings I have yet seen to Evidence rigorously either that the Rule of immediate delivery was not certain or that the Pope had no Supreme Authority in Ecclesiasticall affairs or lastly that though hee were such yet the Authority was to bee abolish't for the Abuses sake Which were necessary to bee done ere they could demonstrate it better to break Church Vnity Nor indeed does their manner of writing bear the slenderest resemblance of rigorous demonstration since demonstration is not a connecting of Ayre and words but of Notions and sence and this from self evident Principles even to the very intended conclusion Whereas their way of writing is onely to find out the sence of words by a Dictionary kind of manner which sort of Discourse is the most fallible most sleight and most subject to Equivocation that can bee imagin'd To omit that rigorous demonstration is pretended by our party for our Rule of faith immediate Tradition which they renounc't and consequently for whatsoever was recieved upon it as was the Pope's Authority as yet unanswer'd by their side Nay their own side sometimes acknowledge our said Rule of faith infallible See Schism Dispatch't p. 104. p. 123. 21. 'T is the most absurd and impious folly imaginable to bring for their excuse that they were fully persuaded the thing was to bee done or is to bee continued For since a full persuasion can spring from Passion or Vice aswell as from reason and virtue as all the world sees and grants it signifies nothing in order to an excuse to say one was fully persuaded hee was to do such a thing till hee show whence hee became thus persuaded otherwise his persuasion might bee a fault it self and the occasion of his other fault in thus acting 'T is not therefore his persuasion but the Ground of his persuasion which is to bee alledged and look't into Which if it were reason whence hee became thus persuaded and that hee knew how hee came to bee persuaded without knowing which 't was irrational to bee persuaded at all then hee can render us this reason which persuaded him and reason telling us evidently that no reason less than demonstration is in our case able to breed full persuasion or conviction that it was better to act as hath been proved Aph. 19. it follows they must give us a demonstrative reason why 't was better to bee done otherwise they can never iustify that persuasion much less the fact which issued from it But the fact being evidently enormous and against a present order of highest concern and no truly Evident reason appearing why 't was better to do that fact 't is from it self convinc't and concluded irrationall precipitate and vicious If they complain of this doctrine as too rigorous in leaving no excuse for weak and ignorant persons who act out of simplicity I reply Either their first Reformers and themselves the continuers of the Breach thought themselves ignorant in those things they went about to reform or no. If they thought themselves ignorant and yet attempted to make themselves iudges 't is a plain self-Condemnation and irrationall If they were ignorant or in some degree ignorant and yet either thought themselves not ignorant or in some degree less ignorant then I ask what made them think themselves wiser than they were except their own Pride So that which way soever they turn their fault and guilt pursve them But if they were indeed knowing in those things then 't is apparent there are no truly sufficient convincing or demonstrative reasons to bee given why they acted since they were never able to produce any such though urged and obliged there unto by the highest motives imaginable Whence they remain still criminall as in the former cases and indeed much more leaving it manifest that neither persuasion nor their fact which was originiz'd from it sprung from reason in their understanding but from Passion and Affection in their Wills THEREFORE THE PROTESTANTS ARE GVILTY BOTH OF MATERIALL AND FORMALL SCHISM SINCE 'T IS EVIDENT THEY HAVE DONE BOTH A SCHISMATICALL FACT AND OVT OF A SCHISMATICALL AFFECTION FINIS THE POST-SCRIPT IF my Adversaries will undertake to reply in a rigorously demonstrative way which as it onely is conclusive so none but it can avail them to iustify a Fact of this nature they shall have a fair return from their Disarmer Otherwise if they resolve to pursve their old method of talking preachingly quotingly and quibblingly hee can bee content to leave them to the Applause of weak and half-witted Readers and to the Laughter and contempt of rationall and intelligent persons INDEX TO THE TREATISE Against Dr. Hammond A ABsurdtiies in Dr. H. p. 215 three til this page the Collectour neglected to gather them p. 216. three more Other three p. 217. Heaps of others from p. 217. till p. 221. Also p. 272 and 274. Two more p. 279. His Absurdity of Absurdities that it was forbidden by Moses his Law to converse with or preach to a Gentile from p. 308. to p. 319. A shameless Absurdity in making a Testimony totally against
his reason to that his persuasion or assurance so as there may not subesse dubium against our rule of Faith acknowledg'd infallible Answ p. 36. at unawares by himself that he will never be either able or willing to show And so for the former pretence to wit that they separated not voluntarily it hath already been shown Schism Disarm'd p. 279. to be a most shameless untruth that by their own occasion they had voluntarily renounced our Government Rule of Faith and doctrines and that there wanted onely the punishment for their former voluntary faults to wit the Churche's Excommunication warning the faithful to avoid their company So that Dr. H's plea is no other than as if a Rebel should renounce both the Government and Laws of the Land and being out-law'd and cut off from the Communion of the good Subjects for these faults should lay all the blame on the Governours and Iudges saying no sedition nor division was made in the Common-wealth till they out-law'd him and his adherents and warned the good Subjects to live apart from them As for those pledges left by Christ to his Church for motives of union which the Cath. Gent. made one of our advantages they are these The submitting to the Government of one Head and Pastour the agreeing in one Rule of Faith to which all our private opinions and debates give place as to an infallible Law to decide al quarrels about Faith the multitudes of visible exteriour practices both in several Sacraments and also divine Service performed with such magnificence of Ceremonies lastly and most especially the coadunation of all the members of the Church in eating that heavenly food beleeved by us to be the true and real Body of our Blessed Lord and Saviour All these and some others are so many ties and tokens which make the Sons of the Catholick Church take one another for Fellows and Brothers that is they are unto them so many motives of Vnion In all which he is blind who sees not that our Church hath a most visible advantage over all other Yet Dr. H. assures us that 't is in vain to speak of those to him and why because his passion and disorder'd affections or Interest have so throughly persuaded him both without and against Evidence and two or three odde testimonies with an Id est in the end of them without ever considering the impossibility that Vniversal Attestation should erre have bred a kind of assurance in him cui non subest dubium which is all hee requires for his own or his Churche's certainty of Faith Rep. p. 16. that he professes himself incapable to heare motives and reasons and that 't is in vain to speak of them to him What was meant by the two Advantages of Antiquity and Possession was sufficiently explicated by the Cath. Gentl. in these words such Antiquity or Possession without dispute or contraction from the Adversary as no King can shew for his Crown and much less any person or persons for any other thing Now what more manifest than that we enjoy this acknowledgment of our Adversaries to have that this Antiquitie and Possession for many ages and that this acknowledgment is a particular advantage to us since the Protestants have none such from our party but were ever charged by us of novelty a late upstart original and that in this very point in debate between us This being plainly there exprest by the Catholick Gentleman to be his meaning Dr. H. first p. 20. shuffles off to Fraternal Communion next of a Divine turn'd Lawyer he cites as an affirmation of the Doctors presumi malam fidem ex antiquiori Adversarij possessione which apply'd means thus much that they being more anciently in possession 't is to be presumed that we usurp't So that till he evidence that they were more anciently in possession his law availes him nothing In the mean time let him consider our two advantage to wit that we had a Possession acknowledg'd before this present possession of theirs whereas their pretended possession before ours is in question and controvertible for Mr. H. will not say that he knows the contrary better than his Church does her Faith which at best he confess'd before had but probability of her not erring now then that which is a probability onely is in it's own nature liable to dispute and controvertible since it may perhaps be shown false to morrow Their possession then pretended to have been before ours is not onely disacknowledg'd by us but also in it's own nature subject to dispute ours before theirs acknowledg'd and not capable of dispute The other advantage we have is that the pretended usurpation of the Pope being of a Supremacy over the whole Church and all the Bishops in it must needs in all reason be most visible to the eyes of the whole world now since it is certain they could never evidence it thus visible as appears by their diversities of opinions about it's introduction to be seen in the Catalogue of Protestancy that is they know not when it came in consequently this consideration affords a certain prejudice against their former possession and the pretence of the Pope's Vsurpation For certainly that Authority which could not be usurp't but most visibly and yet the usurpation is not most visible was not usurp't at all but was ever Wherefore our possession and Authority is iustly presumable to have been coÌ„tinued ever since Christ's time since the beginning of our Faith could never be clearly manifested as many Protestant Authours beyond exception confess and onely some of them driven to that desperate task by our arguments blindly pretend the contrary whereas their bearing sway in this corner of the world is of confest and known original which differences us from them by a most manifest advantage The persuasion of Infallibility our fourth advantage p. 21. there mention'd must necessarily be mistaken and wrong apprehended as well as it's fellows that is now grown ordinary with Mr. H. and so we must not wonder at it I have already shown that this persuasion is the onely means to oblige the Subjects of any Church to Vnity of Belief nay that there can be no rationalâ—ty to any belief at all where this persuasion of the Churche's Infallibility is not found which being found in no Congregation but that of the Catholick Church she hath consequently an infinite advantage above all others in the notion ad nature of a Church which is to be a conserver of Faith or rather indeed it follows hence most evidently that none other can have the true nature of a Church but her self Now Dr. H. in stead of telling us I or no whether this Persuasion be of such a force as is pretended in order to the Vnity of the Faithfull flies off and sayes this can have no influence upon them though it be the onely thing which gives fundamentally Being to a Church as hath been shown telling us moreover for our further certainty